http://news.yahoo.com/court-1-8m-house-built-park-must-removed-133734497.html
"innocent surveying mistake"?
My bet is the "innocent surveying mistake" was not actually obtaining an innocent survey before he started.
A grand would've been too much to pay with such a small construction budget.:pinch:
A survey found the house was on the wrong property? What was the surveying "mistake" unless the "mistake" was that the developer didn't get a survey before building.
>The developer ... didn't discover the error until ... it tried to sell the house and the prospective buyers got a survey.
I wonder who made the "surveying error." Perhaps no one actually pulled a tape?
The buyers were either very smart or very lucky to get a real survey.
> http://news.yahoo.com/court-1-8m-house-built-park-must-removed-133734497.html
>
> "innocent surveying mistake"?
"The developer, Four Twenty Corp., began building the home in 2009, but it didn't discover the error until 2011"
I wonder what they were smoking... and they sure didn't seem very motivated to get done in a hurry!! 😀 😛 😀 😛
I think this is the House.
I think that they may have been trying to put it on parcel 191:
Another article on it with more detail about the surveys :
Lamoureux, a Warwick developer, purchased land on Ocean Road in 1984. Three years later, he engaged ERA Engineering to subdivide the lot into two parcels, court records show.
He conveyed three acres at 1444 Ocean Rd. to Four Twenty Corp., of which Lamoureux is president.
In 2010, relying on Carrigan Engineering, Four Twenty built the house “on what the faulty plans and survey” identified as land belonging to Four Twenty, the ruling says.
Construction was completed in January 2011. That same month, Four Twenty entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement with a prospective buyer. That buyer conducted a survey that showed the house resting squarely on park land and backed out of the deal.
And another : http://m.independentri.com/mobile/front/article_20cb70fc-08b0-11e2-8667-0019bb2963f4.html
As a 30-year industry veteran and member of the state board, Lipsitz stressed how avoidable a mistake actually was in this case. He took issue with Stern citing Carrigan Engineering as the initial surveyor on the project and chided town officials, the state Department of Environmental Management and the state Coastal Resources Management Council for granting the special use permits and residential assent required to proceed with the project that was supposed to be built on the 1.57 acre parcel at 1444 Ocean Road.
“Carrigan isn’t a surveyor and never was a surveyor,” Lipsitz said. “I wish I could get $30,000 to do a lot survey – I would have retired a long time ago. It makes it look like the surveyor just screwed up and that’s not what happened here.”
Lipsitz said Carrigan’s initial plans may have been confusing, drafted in a manner that could have been interpreted by officials as both a survey and a development proposal.
This article sheds a little more light on the situation: http://m.independentri.com/mobile/front/article_20cb70fc-08b0-11e2-8667-0019bb2963f4.html <
A good survey is the basis for ALL good design work without exception. This is arguably the most overlooked and underrated part of ANY design process. Carrigan Engineering Inc.’s Survey Department includes knowledgeable staff with years of experience who know how to get the job done right. We understand the application and tailor the product to meet your needs.
Another interesting article on this:
http://m.independentri.com/mobile/front/article_20cb70fc-08b0-11e2-8667-0019bb2963f4.html <
I like this statement:
"The town has no liability. We relied on a survey by a design professional."
Why not rely on a survey by the plumber or an electrician.
James
Published court findings
Andy_J found this: http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SuperiorCourt/DecisionsOrders/decisions/11-0154.pdf
The articles don't use lot numbers. I'd still like to know what the developer really owned.
> I like this statement:
>
> "The town has no liability. We relied on a survey by a design professional."
You beat me to that comment ?.
It looks to me that the "Park" has just acquired a new admin building!
Looks like some E & O company is going to get a work out.
kudos are in order
to the STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS SUPERIOR COURT.
Their ruling was exhaustive and eloquent. What I thought was interesting is that the defendant argued that it was only 6% of the Nulman estate. Kinda like saying, "C'mon man, they won't miss this little swatch of land that I want.."
Even though Carrigan Engineering seems to be the most culpable in this case...me thinks there may be an architect involved somewhere. If it looks like a architect, walks like a architect and quacks like a architect....you get the picture.
Time to call the wrecking crew!
Published court findings
That's a good read. They laid the logic out in step by step fashion covering all of the bases.
The way I see it, The Nulman Foundation owns a $1.8m ocean front home. If the purpose of the Foundation is to 1) Allow public access to the beach, and 2) benefit the Presbyterian Hospital, then contract a property management company to rent out the home on a weekly basis with the money going to the Hospital and allow public access on the remaining portion of the land.
Oh, and send the Developer a nice Thank You letter.
James
6% out of the middle.
It might only be 6% of the total area... BUT IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!
I also wonder if that takes into account the new paved driveway also?
JaRo...
That would be one way to avoid demolishing the structure. Trouble is the builder actually owns all the concrete, wood, wiring, pvc, drywall and siding.
I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty sure if the owners of the underlying (literally) fee were to occupy the structure, the builder could conceivably have a monetary claim against them.
I was involved in a lawsuit where an ad joiner built a fence on property that didn't belong to him. The property owner "removed" it, (spelled d-o-z-e-r). The court ruled that even though the fence occupied another property, the builder of the fence had value in the material and time. He was not given notice to remove the fence. Although the court ruled that the fence constituted an encroachment, the property owner was found liable for the cost of destroying the fence. Go figger..
I remember the judge mused, "I park my car on other people's property but it doesn't give them the right to dispose of it."
Published court findings
IF the park owns lot 161 and the house in front of that is a takeout ... AND if the taxmap is anywhere near precise or accurate, it looks to me like the new house is not on lot 161.
I think I can roughly see the house lot, in front of the park and the first park distance northerly looks like about 80' the near perpendicular to the beach.
How's come there doesn't seem to be much input from surveyors(maybe many), on a case revolving around almost 2 million dollars, for the original owner, the new owner, the park, the city AND even the court?
2 million dollars and almost no documented surveying activity ...:-S
The park foundation doesn't own the house, but perhaps the use you suggest could be termed compatible with the charter.
In that case, an agreement could be made with the developer to transfer owner ship of the house and related improvements to the foundation at a bargain price. What is the value to the developer of the house minus cost to move it? That would be incentive for him to settle.
But the foundation wouldn't have to accept that sort of agreement if they didn't want to, and they might feel it was not in keeping with the intended use.
