• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    The development company is suing everybody, including the children of the dead guy who sold her the land, and she’s the unreasonable party?

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      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.

      • 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.

      • 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?