• NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        So, protip for future developers: is there a nicer lot next to yours that you want? Build a house on it and go “whoopsie” and offer tradesies

      • Buffalobuffalo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It has all the original trees from her lot? It has the same gradient, adjacent gradients and stone? There’s tons of differences between any two lands and equivalency would be up to the injured party -which they denied. Any judgement would be to make the injured whole or reach an agreement. Stamping your feet like the developer has any defensibility in their negligence is laughable.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          You also can’t look at this like a winning lottery ticket where you’ll be flush with cash for the rest of your life because of it.

          Taking this to trial could wind up with the woman only getting her $22k back and missing out on the other identical property or keeping her same property with a free $500k house on it. The developers royally fucked up here but it’s not like they maliciously clear-cut her land and built a house on it which would be something that should come with a hefty penalty.

          I think the court is just going to try to make her ‘whole’ which comes with the risk of missing out on a much better pre-trial settlement since her actual investment in the property was only $22k. This is not too different than you accidently getting into a fender bender at low speed and the other party suing you for millions of dollars due to ‘pain and suffering.’ The court isn’t going to reward someone for being greedy.