• Pika
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’m not saying that she’s the only unreasonable party and the company itself is definitely being unreasonable as well, I just definitely don’t think she’s helping the matter at all. Especially since this likely will be brought up in the hearing

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think her position is eminently reasonable: You (the development company) have damaged my land, deprived me of the use of it by putting a house in my way, created squatter problems for me, and stuck me with a huge tax bill. Fix it.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Still wondering on what she is doing here that could be construed as unreasonable? Was it that she did not go along with what ever the company offered? Was it that she hired a lawyer? Was it when she was shocked and sicked someone did this to her?

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      If she doesn’t want the house on that property, that is her right. If she doesn’t want the adjacent property, that is also her right.

      The “she just wants a payday” excuse is an old one, and it’s a cover for companies to do bad things and get away with it. The only recourse our legal system gives is often monetary. Take that away with “they just want a payday” and now there is no recourse at all.