• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    she remained being non-cooperative

    No shit, and she has zero obligation or responsibility to. Keep in mind one of the “alternatives” was that she bought the house they illegally built on her land for a discount

    • ysjet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, this is just straight up a scam, she has no obligation to buy their fucking illegal scam house. House belongs to her, in my opinion, if she wants it, and if she doesn’t, it’s on company dime to bulldoze the entire thing, clean the lot, reseed it, and pay back the tax burden they forced.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Don’t forget the possibility of treble damages. I am honestly shocked that anyone can look at this and side with the developer.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      So then if they are being unreasonable her suggestion should be that they pay for the bulldoze correct? unless I missed it somewhere I have not seen it posted she suggested this at all.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Once again, she is under no obligation to suggest anything. The developers here did not make an oopsie this is full blown criminal and they are lucky that the law does not treat companies the same as individuals. If you or I did anything like this (trespassing, conversion, destruction of property, extortion, fraud etc.) we would not be free to carry on.

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          like stated prior, while she is under no obligation to suggest anything, the fact that she did not at all indicates her intention

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            And her intention has nothing to do with anything in this case, no ones intentions here do. This is sadly not a criminal matter (it should have been) so other then modifying damages intent has no real bearing here.

          • SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            What I don’t get is what’s with you suggesting that her wanting the house for herself is a somewhat morally wrong thing. It’s her house. Idiots build it on her land; tough luck shitheads, it’s hers now.