Yes. How dare her object to her property being irrevocably changed without her consent. How dare she not just roll over and accept a completely different property in exchange to make it easy on them.
No two properties are the same. You can’t decide for another that your attempt at a compromise (that only benefits you) is sufficient.
Shit happens, she was given recourse and demanded far more than the damages she incurred.
How does swapping two properties benefit one? They need to pay for all the legal paperwork and everything, they aren’t coming out ahead, since the cost of the house would be the same on either property.
You seem to think the developer benefits here? Even though it’ll costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to process everything? And in the end all they have is a lot with a house, that they would have still had regardless? Where is the benefit to the developer?
And yes, when it comes track homes every property is more or less the exact same, that’s the entire point of them. Theres actually very few cases where lots have any significant difference to them, except for custom communities that are a rarity anywhere.
Shit like this does not happen and when it does the person who fucked up needs to be taught the reason this is rare. In this case the developer needs to be held accountable, they won’t because they’ll file bankruptcy and open a new llc the following week though
I do think they were careless but not malicious. There’s no possible way to turn back the clock and put all the trees back in the lot, so she’s going to have to settle for something besides what she started with.
Okay let’s go with your thing. So developer can now, by your logic, pick any property they want and just build there without the consent of the owner, as long as they later find a similar enough lot to switch with the owner later? And the owner just has to agree to it because it’s still a fair trade?
Of course they can’t just up and fucking do it lmfao, the second time a company tried that they would lose their business license and everything else. The courts aren’t stupid like you are.
Shit happens, most people understand this, I’m sorry you expect everyone to be perfect.
And they were in this specific case……… they aren’t trying to railroad her, they gave her the 2 standard options for remedying it, that has been used for decades already throughout the industry to deal with these exact issues, since shit fucking happens. If a business starts making a habit of it, of course they will deal with it, you seriously think they would just let a business continually do it? Get a fucking grip on reality FFS.
She refused the two standard options, and is now suing for above and beyond damages, that’s why she’s being countersued. The business was trying to be accountable FFS lmfao. Both sides can be assholes AND wrong here, or did that thought never cross your mind….?
That lawsuit implies otherwise. Also of note, those are the standard options the development companies prefer, there are thousands of cases where those options are refused and damages awarded (see almost all of tree law).
I don’t think the developer comes out ahead… but I do think that the punishment on them should be punitive to the point of causing them to never do it again. Swapping out a fully treed lot (that the owner wanted) with a flat wasteland with a house on it could inequitable, depending on what you value. If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.
They’ve also caused her stress and hassle solely due to their fuckup. At the minimum I think she should be entitled to some amount of punitive damages, because she wouldn’t even have to be thinking about this if these people had actually done their job. And all that is assuming the two lots were equivalent before the house was added. We only have the people who have something to gain by that saying it is.
Yes. How dare her object to her property being irrevocably changed without her consent. How dare she not just roll over and accept a completely different property in exchange to make it easy on them.
No two properties are the same. You can’t decide for another that your attempt at a compromise (that only benefits you) is sufficient.
Shit happens, she was given recourse and demanded far more than the damages she incurred.
How does swapping two properties benefit one? They need to pay for all the legal paperwork and everything, they aren’t coming out ahead, since the cost of the house would be the same on either property.
You seem to think the developer benefits here? Even though it’ll costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to process everything? And in the end all they have is a lot with a house, that they would have still had regardless? Where is the benefit to the developer?
And yes, when it comes track homes every property is more or less the exact same, that’s the entire point of them. Theres actually very few cases where lots have any significant difference to them, except for custom communities that are a rarity anywhere.
Shit like this does not happen and when it does the person who fucked up needs to be taught the reason this is rare. In this case the developer needs to be held accountable, they won’t because they’ll file bankruptcy and open a new llc the following week though
The benefit to the developer is being able to be careless, make an expensive mistake, and get off for almost nothing
I do think they were careless but not malicious. There’s no possible way to turn back the clock and put all the trees back in the lot, so she’s going to have to settle for something besides what she started with.
Oh you sweet naive child…
Okay let’s go with your thing. So developer can now, by your logic, pick any property they want and just build there without the consent of the owner, as long as they later find a similar enough lot to switch with the owner later? And the owner just has to agree to it because it’s still a fair trade?
Of course they can’t just up and fucking do it lmfao, the second time a company tried that they would lose their business license and everything else. The courts aren’t stupid like you are.
Shit happens, most people understand this, I’m sorry you expect everyone to be perfect.
They don’t expect them to be perfect. They expect them to be accountable for the consequences of their mistakes.
And they were in this specific case……… they aren’t trying to railroad her, they gave her the 2 standard options for remedying it, that has been used for decades already throughout the industry to deal with these exact issues, since shit fucking happens. If a business starts making a habit of it, of course they will deal with it, you seriously think they would just let a business continually do it? Get a fucking grip on reality FFS.
She refused the two standard options, and is now suing for above and beyond damages, that’s why she’s being countersued. The business was trying to be accountable FFS lmfao. Both sides can be assholes AND wrong here, or did that thought never cross your mind….?
That lawsuit implies otherwise. Also of note, those are the standard options the development companies prefer, there are thousands of cases where those options are refused and damages awarded (see almost all of tree law).
I don’t think the developer comes out ahead… but I do think that the punishment on them should be punitive to the point of causing them to never do it again. Swapping out a fully treed lot (that the owner wanted) with a flat wasteland with a house on it could inequitable, depending on what you value. If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.
That is quite literally exactly what the deal is…….
Literally the lot right next to it, so she can’t even complain it’s a different location…
They’ve also caused her stress and hassle solely due to their fuckup. At the minimum I think she should be entitled to some amount of punitive damages, because she wouldn’t even have to be thinking about this if these people had actually done their job. And all that is assuming the two lots were equivalent before the house was added. We only have the people who have something to gain by that saying it is.