But that’s the whole reason adverse possession even exists at all. If the state valued rightful landowners rights above all else, adverse possession wouldn’t be a thing. It’s a vestige of English common law, but it remains because the state would rather property be “productive” than sit vacant and unused for 20 years. The state could eliminate adverse possession if they wanted to. All it would take is a law, and a pretty simple one. Even with all the hate directed at “squatters” lately, even DeSantis in Florida couldn’t bring himself to eliminate adverse possession completely. They don’t valye individual property rights over everything. They value rich fucks making money over everything, and vacant, unused property interferes with rich fucks making more money.
I think the fact that adverse possession laws exist may be confusing here because this isn’t adverse possession.
In Hawaii, the adverse possession law requires a person to occupy a property openly, continuously, and exclusively for a period of 20 years under a claim of right or color of title . The squatter must also pay property taxes during this period to potentially gain legal ownership.
I know adverse possession isn’t in play here. I even said that. What I’m saying is that the developer may have been hoping the owner didn’t notice or didn’t care, which could have eventually brought it into play. Again, as I already said, that would be have been stupid and risky…but people do lots of stupid and risky shit.
So, they tried to sell it, but the new extra buyer didn’t complete the sale when the title search came up with issues. That at least keeps it from being even more complicated.
The developer clearly found the wrong buyer. They wanted one who skip the title search. Which, nobody should ever do.
I dunno how you could because when they go to record title, you are gonna have an issue.
I’d enjoy seeing an analysis of the situation from a Hawaiian property lawyer. I suspect there may be some Hawaii specific issues that will come into play.
I think @danimagoo is correct about the ultimate outcome. Forced to sell the property. But this is such a tangled situation it may rest entirely on the judge who is assigned to adjudicate. There really seems to be a lot of malfeasance on the part of the developer and they could get nailed for that. Especially if they have a sketchy reputation in Hawaii or are known to take advantage of native Hawaiian land owners
I don’t think that’s what should happen, to be clear. I think the developer should be forced to raze the house and replant whatever flora they removed, returning the property to the state it was in before they decided to build on it. Jason is right that the owner is completely innocent in all this. I think the courts will bend over backwards to avoid that, and come up with some legal justification to force the woman to sell the property as it is now, because courts these days tend to favor business interests over individuals.
This seems like a case for popehat or legal eagle!
I would imagine every law related content creator that’s not fully focused on policing issues is currently working on a video on this, lol.
There are so many alternatives to this:
“This is where we have our drum circles at the full and new moons.”
“The kahunas told me that this is a path where the nightmarchers come through. I find this compelling and want the nightmarchers to have access.”
All she would have to do is claim that she thought she had found iwi (Native Hawaiian bones) on the site and was trying to find which Hawaiian group they were affiliated with before attempting to develop the land. The developers conveniently removed them when they built the house. That would nix anything happening to the plot before her claim was fully investigated, and a developer who digs up a burial without authorization is in for a very bad time. Dirty pool, but no worse than the guys who are trying to charge her for a house she didn’t want.
Agreed. I hope there is some room in Hawaii property law to allow a more just outcome for the land owner
Interestingly enough, or perhaps not, the title to my current house failed to be registered for over two years due to an oversight by our solicitor. The seller knew they had sold it, and both solicitors knew we had bought it, and paid the stamp duty and fee to register it in our name. It didn’t cause any issues. They just registered it and everything is fine.
My naive thought was that this is basically fly-tipping. In this case it’s an entire house, rather than just an old fridge, but it seems like a similar issue.
He’s not the most proportionate; but my good pal ‘fire’ will work for food. Sometimes he even does volunteer jobs(not allowed to call them ‘pro bono work’ after The Incident; but that doesn’t dampen his public spirit!)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
