Woman returns from vacation to find Atlanta home demolished
Woman returns from vacation to find Atlanta home demolished
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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 cases don’t require payment if lost.
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.
Yes. I’m thinking that may be the issue as well.
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.
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