263
Woman returns from vacation to find Atlanta home demolished (apnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A homeowner is mulling the next step after a company mistakenly demolished a home she owned in southwest Atlanta.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 121 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works 53 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

Contingency cases don’t require payment if lost.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Yes. I’m thinking that may be the issue as well.

[-] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago

This is why companies need to have insurance.

So something not adding up.

You think someone wanted the land?

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

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?

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago

I don’t see where it said no lawyer will take her case. Just that there hasn’t been legal action yet.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

It goes way beyond insurance and monetary compensation. There needs to be criminal liability for destroying someone's home.

[-] jasory@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

The cops wouldn't like that. They like to be able to destroy people's homes with no repercussion.

[-] ElleChaise@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

I get that you're being facetious, but even then they'd obviously have immunity if any laws changed. Cops always coppin'.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

They're not being facetious. It's a thing. Cops destroy homes with impunity.

[-] Whirlgirl9@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

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

[-] VonCesaw@lemmy.world 97 points 2 years ago

“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

[-] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 89 points 2 years ago

Yeah the title would have you thinking she got back from holiday and everything she owned was probably in there.

[-] Rogue@feddit.uk 93 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 33 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Smoogs@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

Who just shows up and starts doing without checking first?

[-] CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

It is better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission?

[-] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The rapist MO.

[-] rappo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I'm sure they checked first, they just weren't very good at checking.

[-] Ejh3k@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

"Yep, you'll have that on them big jobs."

  • the contractor probably
[-] Ornwen@mstdn.social 1 points 2 years ago

@stopthatgirl7 the company “is working to resolve the mishap”. WTF? how is the foreperson of the job site not in jail?

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

Maybe if it can be shown their actions were malicious and not accidental. If not, more likely it’s purely a civil case.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

Maybe they're deciding how much to bill her for demolishing her derelict abandoned building.

[-] Ornwen@mstdn.social 0 points 2 years ago

@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.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago

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

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Ornwen@mstdn.social -2 points 2 years ago

@hiddengoat @stopthatgirl7 That’s not how the law works. Everybody involved in the crime gets charged.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

She's a crazy person and they had a boarded up property they didn't live in get destroyed.

[-] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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....

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
263 points (93.7% liked)

News

35714 readers
949 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world