On Monday, February 10, 2014 12:18:52 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:09:25 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:23 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:18:46 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been
a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for
their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.
Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like
this.
Contract law? A "meeting of the minds" at sale. My guess.
Yeah, except the state is one party, and that could make a difference.
Also, how the mistake was made could matter too. Like suppose you
had multiple drafts of a sales contract where the price was
$90,000, everybody had seen those, got used to it, and then in
the final one someone somehow cut and pasted incorrectly and made
it $250,000? In that case, clearly the meeting of the minds was
at the $90K price and the $250K price would be a mistake that I'm
sure you could reverse, if the facts prove it was clearly a mistake
and not the agreed on price. Problem with this one is there is no
mention of how it happened.
This article contains much greater detail.
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/he-s...ot-wants-dough
Additionally, you might be able to locate the filing, VDOT v. Ramsey if you can
identify the county in which the case is being heard and then search for a
register of actions that is available to the public.
Thanks for finding that. So, it looks like one big thing that's
missing and not in the property owner's favor is that this was not
a sale at an agreed on price. The state had a appraisal that the
piece in question was worth $250K. But he didn't accept
that and as part of the process, the state put that money into an
account and went ahead with the project, with the actual value
apparently to be determined later, either by some condemnation
appeals process or court. Then the owner was given access to the
money, and even warned at that time that the final amount could
be more or less. In short, with these facts, it would appear
there was never a sales transaction for the property to begin with.
And I would think to win he's going to have to prove that the property
they took should have been valued at $250K. It's far different
from the news story that made it appear there had been an actual
transaction completed.