Updated posts 2026
Imagine buying a slice of Hawaiian paradise for a cool $22,500. Visions of swaying palm trees and ocean breezes likely danced in your head. But for Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds, the dream turned into a surreal legal nightmare.
Reynolds, in California during the pandemic, received a phone call that would shatter her tropical reverie. A real estate broker informed her that a $500,000 house now stood on her vacant Hawaiian lot. A local developer, Keaau Development Partnership, had commissioned PJ’s Construction to build a house on Reynolds’ property instead of one in their own development.
Chaos ensued. The developer, the contractor, the architect — all pointed elsewhere. Reynolds found herself facing a lawsuit from the very party that had built on her land. The developer offered her a similar lot as a resolution, which she declined. Her lawyer, James DiPasquale, argued against setting a precedent where property lines became negotiable after the fact.
The developer’s lawyer, Peter Olson, countered that Reynolds was being opportunistic, suggesting the densely forested lots were practically indistinguishable. Reynolds argued that the developer’s pre-construction surveys were to blame for the error.
Meanwhile, the empty house attracted squatters, adding a further complication for Reynolds and the surrounding community.
The law has a name for this situation and a long history of struggling with it. The doctrine of improvements made in good faith — sometimes called the innocent improver rule — exists precisely because the obvious remedies are both unjust. Awarding the building to the landowner hands them a windfall they never paid for; forcing them to buy it or surrender the land makes them pay for someone else’s mistake. Most jurisdictions give courts discretion to fashion a remedy rather than applying a fixed rule, which is why cases like this one tend to settle: nobody can predict what a judge will do.
This Hawaiian case serves as a reminder that thorough due diligence matters in real estate, and that for developers, careful surveying and clearly marked boundaries separate a completed project from a lawsuit.
Key Takeaways:
- Importance of Due Diligence: The story emphasises the need for thorough verification before any real estate transaction, including confirming property lines, commissioning surveys, and ensuring proper legal documentation.
- Potential Risks in Construction Projects: The case highlights the consequences of errors during construction. Anyone involved in development should consider oversight and risk management as basic protections rather than optional extras.
Related story: Zuckerberg’s Delicious Venture: Crafted Beef and Beer-Drinking Cattle on $100M Hawaiian Estate
