https://apnews.com/article/house-demolished-atlanta-mistake-8aabf0c39f201ace9848e801d14d3101
A homeowner is mulling the next step after a company mistakenly demolished a home she owned in southwest Atlanta.
A homeowner is mulling the next step after a company mistakenly demolished a home she owned in southwest Atlanta.
Wow! How fucked is it that a company can fuck up tear your house down at the wrong address then just shurg and apparently you have no recourse? Something off here maybe we aren't getting the whole story. No way that isn't a lawsuit the fact that she in limbo and no attorney wouldn't take the case makes me wonder.
Reading deeper into the story it at first reads like they tore her house down while she was away on vacation. The real story is she wasn't living in said house and it had been vacant for 15 years. So something not adding up.
Article doesn't say no attorney would take the case. It says they talked to a lawyer. And they're in limbo. Meaning they're still deciding how to pursue this matter.
“We’re still in this process of figuring out what to do,” she said. “We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen.”
So they're looking for the best approach. Not that there is a lack of approach.
An attorney would happily take a losing case. They get paid either way. Their job is to get the best outcome possible, not to win a lawsuit--though that may end up being the best outcome.
Contingency can take 40%, so if they end up suing and settling for just a bit more than the house is worth, it might actually cost them money instead of just getting a directly negotiated settlement from the companies insurance.
That is probally the main issue. A mostly falling apart home isn't worth much in comparison to the land it's on. 100k at most, more likely 25-50k. Bog standard houses themselves aren't that valuable, so suing suddenly is maybe not worth it, which the demo company knows and is abusing.
You're right, that has slipped my mind when posting. However, they can still choose to pay if they want a lawyer if no one is accepting contingency.
This is why companies need to have insurance.
So something not adding up.
You think someone wanted the land?
I think the house was abandon and she even claims it was boarded up. Good chance the county or city allowed this to happen. I have property in a county and the city council in a local town says that if your home looks abandon or trash they will seize your property clean it up then bill you for said clean up. He was very proud of this.
Also how she says she spoke to attorneys and none will take her case and she in limbo means that she has no case and no recourse. I like to know why?
I don’t see where it said no lawyer will take her case. Just that there hasn’t been legal action yet.
It goes way beyond insurance and monetary compensation. There needs to be criminal liability for destroying someone's home.
If the building was in fact "boarded up", then it might be hard to argue that it was someone's home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.
The cops wouldn't like that. They like to be able to destroy people's homes with no repercussion.
I get that you're being facetious, but even then they'd obviously have immunity if any laws changed. Cops always coppin'.
i know the guy whose house was destroyed by cops in greenwood village in denver. they took it to court and effing lost. the cops additionally did $80k damage to the neighbor's home. it's one of the most rage inducing stories ever.
Some people have paid off their mortgage, or otherwise don't have the requirement to carry homeowners insurance. If they need an influx of cash to finance something like a lawsuit, they told take a line of credit against their assets. If their biggest asset was destroyed, what the fuck they gonna do
“It’s been boarded up about 15 years, and we keep it boarded, covered, grass cut, and the yard is clean,” she said. “The taxes are paid and everything is up on it.”
might be why they thought it was the one to tear down tbh
Yeah the title would have you thinking she got back from holiday and everything she owned was probably in there.
The fact she was on vacation is entirely irrelevant to the story. It's inclusion is solely to lead the reader to think it was her primary residence.
Famously on a US military base they were so behind on maintenance work orders that one day a crew showed up to install new exterior doors on a storage building and the next day a different crew showed up and demolished the building.
Years back I was putting in a landscape on a house when a guy in a backhoe shows up next door and just starts ripping out the walkway from the neighbor's driveway to front door.
It was the wrong house. He had to finish the demolition and repour the walkway. We all laughed and laughed at the situation.
It's nowhere near a house being torn down, but it happens.
@stopthatgirl7 the company “is working to resolve the mishap”. WTF? how is the foreperson of the job site not in jail?
Maybe they're deciding how much to bill her for demolishing her derelict abandoned building.
@Mouselemming Only the local jurisdiction can force that, usually by condemning the building, and then notice is required to be given. The demo crow literally had no permit, the law is clearly on the property owner’s side in this case.
We don't need atsigns here, I'd still see your reply up by my little bell without it.
Yes, I was making a tiny joke, but also implying she's not not as harmed as the headline implies, and might even be better off since the land may be more easily sold and/or a more useful building constructed. I did read the article and know the demolition wasn't authorized.
Maybe if it can be shown their actions were malicious and not accidental. If not, more likely it’s purely a civil case.
A contractor right by me set the woods on fire after being told by the fire chef to stop burning on windy days. They burnt during 30 miles an hour winds and it took out tons of undergrowth, and nearly got a couple houses. Guy still walks free, no fines or anything
Because whoever runs the site probably isn't the person that made the decision to raze the building. No liability should fall to them if they're found to be doing their job properly.
@hiddengoat @stopthatgirl7 That’s not how the law works. Everybody involved in the crime gets charged.
This isn't even remotely fucking true and you need to shut the fuck up.
Acting in good faith will protect you from a hell of a lot of shit, especially if you have the kind of job that doesn't carry extra liability with it (like an engineer).
"Steve, we have an order to go knock down this building. Here's the paperwork."
"Okay boss, I will go knock down that building that you have the signed paperwork for, indicating I need to knock it down."
"Just following orders" doesn't mean shit in The Hague but it means everything in a civil or criminal trial if you have the paperwork to back you up.
Source: Am paralegal. Deal with similar shit regularly.
The ok imagine you grandma dies and leaves you the place.
1 not expensive to maintain. 2 a second house is like a stash of money or simply a safeguard. 3 wtf is wrong with you? If I go around breaking you heirlooms and your shit in general. I'm crazy for wanting you checked?
She's crazy cuz the guy cant read the right address he's supposed to demolish....
