Lot owner stunned to find $500k house accidentally built on her land and now she's getting sued by developers
Anne Reynolds purchased a plot of land in Hawaii's Paradise Park in 2018, but returned to find that a $500k house had been built on it
A woman who bought a plot of land in Hawaii was shocked when she returned to the land to find that a $500k house had been built there without her knowledge.
Annaleine 'Anne' Reynolds has bought a plot of land in Hawaii in 2018 for $22,500, and had planned to build a women's wellness retreat.
But when Anne returned to the plot after spending some time in California, she found that her plans to build her dream business had been disrupted.
Advert
She had been spending time in California during the pandemic, and was waiting for the right moment to launch her venture.
All that came to a grinding halt though when she received an unexpected call from a realtor.
The realtor informed her that they had sold a house worth $500k on the lot which she purchased.
But that's somehow still not it, as not only has Anne had a house built on her land without her permission, she is now being sued by the developers.
She said: "There's a lot of fingers being pointed between the developer and the contractor and some subs."
The developer Keaau Development Partnership had bought land in the subdivision, and hired the construction firm PJ's Construction to build around a dozen houses on the land.
But in a mixup the company mistakenly built one house on Anne's plot instead of the plot the developer had bought.
Anne is now being sued by the developer, alongside the construction company, the architect, and others.
Court documents revealed that she was offered an adjacent plot of land of equivalent size and value, but rejected the offer.
She said that she had viewed the land she bought as 'sacred' and purchased it because it had all the right qualities.
Her lawyer James DiPasquale has said that she should not have to pay anything to the developers.
DiPasquale argued that this would set a precedent for people to muscle in on land which had already been sold.
He said: "It would set a dangerous precedent, if you could go on to someone else's land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it."
Not only that but during the legal wrangling the house has been occupied by squatters.
A neighbour said: "Before they put the fence on the property there were people coming, looking inside."
There have already been complaints about the house being left in a poor state while the legal problems around it continue.
Kit Roberts