Developer Builds House on Neighbor's Property Then Sues Innocent Homeowner for Its Value: A Hawaiian Landowner’s Legal Nightmare
In Hawaiian Paradise Park, a developer made a significant error by building a home on the wrong property—on land belonging to Anne Reynolds. Now, the developer is suing Reynolds, demanding through the court that she either pay for the value of the home or be forced to transfer her property to him to correct his mistake.
Blunder Leads to Lawsuit
Anne Reynolds is being sued after her neighbor's contractor mistakenly built a house on her land. She didn't discover the error until the neighbor's attempt to sell the property initiated a title report. Now, the developer has filed a lawsuit against the contractor, the County of Hawaii, and other parties, including Reynolds. The developer’s suit alleges two causes of action against Reynolds: unjust enrichment and constructive trust. Meanwhile, the contractor has also made claims against Reynolds seeking similar relief.
Financial and Legal Implications
The wrongful construction has significantly increased Reynolds' property taxes and caused other damages to her property. The Developer’s lawsuit argues that the presence of the house on her land unjustly benefits her. Reynolds finds the house aesthetically displeasing, and the increased taxes and destruction of the property's natural state have imposed unwanted financial and emotional burdens.
Security Measures and Trespassing Troubles
Reynolds had to erect a fence around her entire property and deal with break-ins and squatters defecating in the improperly built home, creating both a nuisance and a health hazard. This situation has led to additional expenses and legal considerations for her property.
Legal Analysis of Claims and Defenses
The developer’s lawsuit against Reynolds is founded on two primary legal theories. First, unjust enrichment, which suggests that Reynolds has received a benefit she must pay for, is generally difficult to prove when the enrichment was not requested or consented to by the benefitted party. Second, the constructive trust, which the developer asserts, would typically require showing that Reynolds' retention of her property (with the house on it) would be unjust. However, given that the construction was not authorized by Reynolds, establishing this may be challenging.
On her part, Reynolds has asserted several defenses. She argues that she did not consent to, know about, or contribute to the mistake of building on her land and therefore should not be penalized for the contractor's error. Additionally, the legal doctrine of “mistake of fact,” pertaining to the contractor's misplacement of the home, could absolve her of liability. Moreover, Reynolds claims that she has suffered a decrease in the value of her property due to the destruction of its natural state, which could counter the claim of unjust enrichment.
Furthermore, the costs incurred due to security measures and dealing with squatters is being pursued by Reynolds. In legal strategy, her counterclaims for trespass, nuisance, and negligence speak to the damages she has incurred as a direct result of the construction error. Reynolds legal team also argues that both the Developer’s lawsuit and the contractor’s cross-claims against her are frivolous and warrant an award of attorney fees and punitive damages.
Notably, Reynolds has filed counterclaims (and cross-claims) for trespass, nuisance, and negligence asserting her legal stance that the presence of the house on her property is not only unwarranted but also a significant liability, dispelling the notion of any enrichment.
The Bottom Line
This case underscores the need for strict adherence to property lines and the responsibilities of contractors and local authorities to prevent such errors. As the lawsuit proceeds, the outcome will have significant implications for property law and homeowner rights in Hawaii.