I’m talking more about vacant land in it’s natural state, not property that’s already been developed into housing. So in this case, a developer just built a house on a vacant land whose owner seems to have wanted to just leave in its natural state until she could figure out how to build a retreat. And it sounds like her idea of a retreat would have included a good portion of the land left in its natural state.
People squatting in empty apartments in an area with limited affordable housing is a completely different animal. And frankly, it’s an animal that should be dealt with by addressing affordable housing and placing limits on real estate speculation. That’s not what’s happening here.
Interesting question of ownership-it’s on her property, but she didn’t pay for it. It’s the product of trespass and I’m sure there are laws against building on property you don’t own without permissions, but does that make the house de facto hers?
This is odd by HI standards. We stayed at house in the Waimea Bay area on Oahu. The homeowner told us that the empty oceanfront lot next door was purposely kept unimproved because the land had a kapu on it. Apparently, there is an ancient temple in the hills above all the homes and this is the last remaining empty lot for the spirits of Puu O Mahuka to swoop down into the sea.
The mainland family was going to build a house on the land but something happened, somebody died, and the family decided to keep the lot vacant to appease the spirits. It remains locked up however there is a groundskeeper who keeps the grounds in a park-like condition.
I find it tempting to disregard Hanlon´s Razor and believe that the developer had a wealthy customer with their heart set on that specific location. That would be another reason not to have a surveyor check it.
It is a common business strategy that it is easier to apologize later than ask for permission. In this case it seems likely that they expected a non-resident, lower middle class owner of an empty lot would roll over after a little strong arming and dickering.
Edit: I just noticed that Danimagoo already submitted this thesis. Please put any likes there, sorry
Hawaii does have some unique property issues, from a legal standpoint, so maybe something like that will come into play. This is a little off topic, but if you’re interested in Hawaii and obscure real estate issues, watch the George Clooney movie the Descendants. The Rule Against Perpetuities is a side plot.
There’s an added complication that might be relevant - apparently the lot had been sold by the real estate developer.
I don’t know how it works in the US. In Australia we have a local title system with specific rules separate from common law which might come into play. Been too long for me to remember what that would do exactly - only that it’s important.
You joke, but a common hypothetical used in US law schools to teach property law is a scenarios where an owner, O, sells the fictional property of Blackacre to A. A then doesn’t get around to recording the deed very quickly. In the meantime, O sells Blackacre to B (maybe fraudulently, maybe because he just forgot), who promptly records the deed. After that, A records her deed. Who gets the property? And the answer, believe it or not, is that it depends what state you’re in. In some states, whoever records the deed first wins. So in this case, I’m really curious if a title search was done by the developer or whoever bought the property from the developer, because that should have revealed the actual owner. Unless…she never recorded her deed after buying the property at auction. Discovery in this case is going to be interesting.
She bought it in 2018, and they did this in 2022. The time period is very short here, and I doubt the four years with a pandemic in the middle present as “abandoned” or any failure on the owners’ part. This isn’t even 5 years. It is a move to steal her property if not a mistake.
I look forward to seeing if your analysis of the outcome is accurate.
Well the adverse possession clock wouldn’t have started until 2022, so they’d currently only be two years into that. Plus, unless I’m mistaken, no one is currently occupying the house, so adverse possession isn’t actually in play. I’m just saying that’s what I think they were hoping would happen, not what actually did happen. I am really curious if anyone ever did a title search throughout this whole process, though. This would probably be really hard to pull off in New Jersey. Here, there’s a mandatory attorney review clause in all real estate contracts. It gives buyer and seller three days to have an attorney look everything over and make sure there aren’t any problems. You don’t have to actually have an attorney do that, but most people do because you can’t waive the clause, and if there is a problem that’s later found that an attorney likely would have caught (this being a great example), you’re SOL.
Well…man, real estate law in the US sucks. So, it depends. Here’s a scenario. The property auction would have been public. They could have gotten her contact info from there. So they contact her and offer to buy the property. They get no response. Then they do a title search and discover she never recorded the title (I’m not saying this happened…it probably didn’t, I’m just creating a hypothetical, as law students studying for the bar do). Let’s say Hawaii is a state where first to record the deed gains title. They say, “Hey, if she isn’t paying attention, maybe we could build a house here, sell it, record the deed, and if she doesn’t notice for (however long Hawaii’s statute of limitations is), then we’re all free and clear!” It would be a stupid, risky thing to do, not to mention unethical and immoral, but hey…it’s real estate. When has that ever stopped anyone?
ETA: I really need to go read the actual complaint and answer. That should be public. I have a lot of questions about who’s actually suing who for what and under what theories. I really don’t see how unjust enrichment could have any merit at all.
Adverse possession shouldn’t play. in CA it takes 5 years of openly living in the space. The idea that I think is super questionable here is that the government “Wants the land used” above the rights of the landowner. The US was founded by landowners to keep their land theirs.
The title is hers, and no mistakes were made on her part, as reported by the story. Failing to respond to a lowball offer to purchase your property is not a release.
2018 – Reynold purchased the property from the county at auction. Clearly, the title was recorded because sometime between 2018 and 2022, the Developer contacted her to buy the land, showing 1) they knew its hers 2) they knew they needed to acquire it
2022: House SOMEHOW gets built on property that developers knowingly do not own. The developer entered a contract to sell the house, and apparently, the buyer’s realtor contacted her to get the knowingly bad title to the developer fixed.
The Developers seem to have their work cut out for them to prove they made an honest mistake here and that the courts should do something to help them out.
