« Drivers spot man in nothing but a thong, wig and fake breasts | Main | Couple caught skinny-dipping in city's drinking water reservoir »
Woman fights to get $30K after her home is mistakenly razed
Annie Wilson's home was mistakenly demolished by a contractor, destroying memorabilia and antiques with it. The home was assessed at about $10,000, but she believes $30,000 is fair compensation. "I'm so tired of fighting this," she says. "This is just a nightmare." (ClarionLedger.com)
July 1, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
They need to pay this woman the 30K, it's the least they can do for this poor woman's hassel.
They made the mistake, they need to own up to it. I don't think 30K is too much to ask for on this woman's behalf--her furniture is ruined, dammit.
Posted by: twerp | Jul 1, 2008 6:05:54 AM
Hell, I think they should pay her 100K just for being assholes about it.
Posted by: twerp | Jul 1, 2008 6:09:07 AM
her fault for leaving the house out in the open like that.
Posted by: nellagain | Jul 1, 2008 6:12:10 AM
the noive!
Posted by: Cluckie | Jul 1, 2008 6:16:12 AM
$30k? That will buy you a nice refrigerator box to live in Manhattan.
I couldn't tell according to the article if anyone actually lived in the house, in which case I'd say she deserved even more money. I'm sure the actual value of the stuff in the house was probably no more than a few grand, but since some of them are irreplacable family heirlooms she probably deserves an extra 10 grand for emotional damage. I'd say $25k and an apology would make both sides happy enough.
Posted by: G-Man | Jul 1, 2008 6:33:40 AM
30K is a pittance...just give her the damn money. They're lucky she didn't get a trial lawyer and sue for millions.
Posted by: cherie | Jul 1, 2008 6:33:51 AM
What kind of idiot bulldozes a house without making sure that it's the correct one? On top of the school's fine, the contractors should have to fork over serious dough to this lady for being a bunch of total f*cking morons.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Jul 1, 2008 7:06:19 AM
Raze my house by mistake... You will pay me a lot more then the cost to replace the house and contents... beacuse you were and idiot.
Posted by: Dick C. Normas | Jul 1, 2008 7:20:05 AM
"Matt Steffey, a law professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, said the disagreement should be settled out of court. "This is a perfect example of how the legal system doesn't work for the average citizen," Steffey said. "If she has to hire a lawyer, she is going to have to pay the lawyer and it's going to reduce her recovery."
Well, Mr. Steffey, why don't you be a nice guy and handle her case pro bono?
You know, they are going to give this woman some money, and then turn around and sue the contracting company for thousands of dollars. Plus, now the univerisity has the land they wanted. Mistake? I don't think so.
Posted by: lawdog | Jul 1, 2008 7:25:29 AM
HELL SHE DESERVES MUCH MORE THAN 30,000
Posted by: | Jul 1, 2008 8:04:21 AM
$30k for a $10k house? It's not like she's asking for millions. $100k plus a free masters degree should be the minimum what she should get.
Posted by: Nick | Jul 1, 2008 8:14:58 AM
Maybe I'm paranoid. I don't believe it was a mistake. The university wanted the land. Old people who love their neighborhoods prevent bigger entities from getting the land--especially when those old people hold mortgage-free properties that they plan to leave to their kids. Of course the university says it's not worth much. But how much would land near a university sell for, even if it were used as overpriced rental property to house students?
Posted by: Displaced | Jul 1, 2008 8:36:03 AM
LMAO @ nellagain....nice...
Posted by: R | Jul 1, 2008 8:47:00 AM
Reminds me of the movie Stranger Than Fiction.
Harold Crick: [after his wall has just been demolished by construction workers] Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey hey hey hey hey hey! What're you doing?
Construction Worker #1: Holy crap and hell!
Construction Worker #2: What the hell is that? Stop the crane!
Construction Worker #1: Hey!
Harold Crick: Hey, what are you doing?
Construction Worker #1: Us? What are YOU doing?
Harold Crick: I was watching TV!
Construction Worker #1: Well, we're demolishing this place.
Harold Crick: Are you nuts? I live here!
Construction Worker #1: Is that a TV?
Harold Crick: Yes, that's a TV! It's MY TV!
Construction Worker #1: Well, what's your TV doing in there?
Harold Crick: I said I live here, stupid! It's where I keep my stuff! My name's on the goddamn buzzer! Harold Crick, Apartment 2B eighteen ninety-three, McCarthy!
Construction Worker #1: [pause] Did you say eighteen NINETY-three?
Harold Crick: Yes!
Construction Worker #1: [another pause] Oh. Woops.
Posted by: Reno | Jul 1, 2008 8:53:05 AM
You can buy a house for $10K in the US of A???
Posted by: Farmer Bob and the City | Jul 1, 2008 9:44:19 AM
This seems very simple to me.
Replacement cost of house and belongings
(it may be difficult to determine replacement cost for uninventoried furniture, but perhaps the chards could be analyzed).
Pay any expenses in the meantime (ie Rent/hotel costs, lawyers fees, etc.)
Plus, there should be a penalty to cover the negligence/inconvenience this woman suffered.
And this doesn't take into account anything that is emotionally irreplacable (ie photos, family heirlooms).
Perhaps 30K covers it. But I would be surprised if she can get a house built and replace the belongings for that 30K.
I would think that any court case would find in her favor, and when that happened, her lawyers fees would be covered by the defendant.
Posted by: yo | Jul 1, 2008 11:13:42 AM
Yo, her fees may not be paid by the defendant. It all depends on the state she is in, if the allow attorneys fees for simple civil actions, and if her attorney filed an offer of judgment.
I know in WI, we are not entitled to attorney fees and costs on every single case. We (assuming we are the plaintiff) must file an offer of judgment, and if the jury comes back with an offer over the offer of judgment, fees and costs must be paid by the defendant. On the other hand, if a jury comes back with an amount under the offer of judgment, the plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys fees and costs.
Posted by: lawdog | Jul 1, 2008 11:32:45 AM
State legislatures are chock full of lawyers, who make the laws so lawsuit settlements benefit the lawyers, not the injured parties.
Posted by: Binky Fairfax | Jul 1, 2008 11:56:46 AM
A new way for the state to seize property:
destroy it,
then make the owners wade through the state's own self-aggrandizing legal system until it's too late for the owners to get anything.
"Okay, Joe, which one do we tear down, the wreck or the decent house full of antiques?"
"The school wants both."
"I don't see nuttin', Joe!"
Posted by: Charles Brobst | Jul 1, 2008 3:27:07 PM
I was thinking the same thing Charles Brobst was thinking. I didn't get to post it because I got SWAMPED with work to do. I'll have the same deal tomorrow.
Posted by: twerp | Jul 1, 2008 7:43:29 PM
Ditto for nellagain!
Posted by: Zimbabalouie | Jul 2, 2008 2:47:30 PM
