Reynolds, who lives in California, previously told Business Insider she had planned to use the land for a home for her children as well as to host women’s retreats, but said in legal filings that she discovered in June 2023 that a house worth roughly $500,000 had been built on the plot.

PJ’s Construction, which was contracted by Keaau Development to build twelve properties in Hawaiian Paradise Park, mistakenly built the property on the wrong plot after using telephone poles to try to identify Lot 115 — but accidentally built it on Lot 114, the other side of the telephone pole, per legal filings.

Patrick John Lawrence, Jr., the owner of PJ’s Construction, said that he was first made aware that the property had been built on the wrong lot when he was informed by the real-estate agent after the house was sold.

Keaau Development then sued Reynolds, claiming she was “unjustly enriched” by the property.

PJ’s Construction has to pay for the demolition of the house on Reynolds’s property, Judge Robert D. S. Kim wrote in an order on Monday, viewed by BI. The company may seek contribution or indemnity from Keaau Development at a subsequent trial or hearing, Kim wrote.

Reynolds had also asked for the court to order Keaau Development and PJ’s Construction to restore the plot of land to its original state. To build the house, PJ’s Construction had bulldozed the lot, which “removed all of the previously standing native vegetation,” Kim wrote. After this, there was a “long period of neglect,” during which invasive Albizia trees were able to “infest” the lot, he wrote.

As well as building the house, PJ’s Construction also installed a septic tank and a catchment water system.

But Kim wrote that it was ‘”impossible” to return the property to its original state.

The companies had “seriously disturbed the peaceable use, enjoyment, and possession of real property,” Kim wrote.

Reynolds had testified that her property taxes for the plot shot up after the house was constructed and that she found signs of squatting such as empty drink containers and human waste in the toilet and on the floor.

Keaau Development and PJ’s Construction excavated the lot and built the house without a survey as part of a plan to “cut corners to reduce construction costs,” Kim wrote in Monday’s filing. And because the construction permits were approved for Lot 115, not Lot 114, the house is illegal, he wrote.

The case is still ongoing, with a trial scheduling conference currently set for the end of July.

“We are thrilled with the court’s decision that PJ’s Construction must bear the costs of demolishing the unauthorized structure on Anne Reynolds’ property,” Reynolds’ lawyer, James D. DiPasquale, told BI.

“This ruling not only preserves Anne’s property rights but also sets a precedent for accountability in the construction industry. While it’s regrettable that the land cannot be restored to its original state, the judgment underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to property and zoning laws.”

Business Insider was not immediately able to contact lawyers for PJ’s Construction, and did not immediately receive a response from Keaau’s attorney.

WASHINGTON (BP) – In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sent the case of Idaho and Moyle v. U.S. back to the Ninth Circuit Court in a ruling released, June 27. The case involves a conflict between state law and the Biden Administration’s use of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

“At the heart of the case is the wild assertion by the Biden Administration that abortion is healthcare. Instead of dismantling that argument and protecting lives, the Court punted,” said Brent Leatherwood, Ethics & Religious Liberty (ERLC) president.

“We agree with Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch that any perceived conflict here is the result of the federal government’s novel approach to EMTALA. These justices would have moved forward with ruling on the merits of the case––and the Court should have done so,” he said.

The “unsigned order from the justices leaves in place an order by a federal judge in Idaho that temporarily blocks the state from enforcing its abortion ban, which carves out exceptions only to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest, to the extent that it conflicts with a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. That 1986 law requires emergency rooms in hospitals that receive Medicare to provide ‘necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients who arrive with an “emergency medical condition,’” according to Amy Howe at scotusblog.com.

Leatherwood said the ERLC will continue to work to support the state law in the case.

According to the ERLC, “While Idaho’s law is allowed to remain in effect in the meantime, it is limited by a decision from the lower court permitting abortion when the health of the woman is deemed at serious risk, and continuing litigation will resolve a lack of clarity on what that terminology means.”

Leatherwood called the Biden Administration action a means to “radically reinterpret laws meant to save lives.”

Lawyers for the Biden Administration argued the law caused confusion between the state’s law prohibiting abortion and the federal regulation mandating physicians perform an abortion in a case when the mother’s health is deemed to be at emergency risk.

“I am disappointed that SCOTUS has not rejected the Biden administration’s blatant attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies. Throughout my 30-year career, EMTALA has never confused me or my obstetric peers when providing emergency care, especially considering 90% of obstetricians do not perform elective abortions,” said Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN who also serves as the vice president and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Pro-life advocates believe some women are manipulating the federal policy to receive an abortion in Idaho despite the state law.

“I have always – before Dobbs, and since– been able and willing to intervene if a pregnancy complication threatened my patient’s life, and every state pro-life law allows us to act. Forcing doctors to end an unborn patient’s life by abortion in the absence of a threat to his mother’s life is coercive, needless and goes against our oath to do no harm,” she said.

According to the ERLC, “The case will return to the Ninth Circuit with the injunction from the lower court once more in effect, where the court will hear the case on the merits and proceed, essentially, as if the Supreme Court had never taken up the case. This case or other litigation raising these underlying questions will likely return to the Supreme Court in coming terms.”

A great recent article by Chris D’Angelo reports on the connection between Tim Sheehy, the Republican challenging Jon Tester for his senate seat, and PERC, the Bozeman-based Property and Environment Research Center that promotes what it calls “free market environmentalism.”  

While Montanans might wonder about Sheehy’s background and policy positions given the shifting sands in his explanations, the fact that he was on the board of PERC is not in question — despite his failure to disclose that fact as required by Senate rules which his campaign says is an “omission” that’s being “amended.”   

For those who have long been in the conservation, environmental, and public lands policy arena, PERC is a very well-known entity. As noted on its IRS 990 non-profit reporting form, the center is “dedicated to advancing conservation through markets, incentives, property rights and partnerships” which “applies economic thinking to environmental problems.” 

But to put it somewhat more simply, PERC believes that private land ownership results in better conservation of those lands under the theory — and it is a disputable theory — that if you own the land and resources, you take better care of it due to its investment value.  This has long been their across the board approach to land, water, endangered species and resource extraction.

If one wanted to dispute that theory, it certainly wouldn’t be difficult to do, particularly in Montana where checking the list of Superfund sites left behind by private industries and owners bears indisputable evidence of the myth that private ownership means better conservation of those resources.

In fact, the theory falls on its face since, when “using economic thinking” the all-too-often result is to exploit the resources to maximize profit as quickly as possible.  And again, this example is applicable across a wide spectrum of resources.  In Montana, that can mean anything from degrading rangeland by putting more livestock on it than it can sustain to, as in Plum Creek’s sad history, leaving behind stumpfields filled with noxious weeds on their vast private — once public — land holdings. 

None of this is particularly a mystery, yet PERC has sucked down enormous amounts of funding from anti-conservation sources for more than four decades as it tries mightily to put lipstick on the pig of the all-too-obvious results of runaway private lands resource extraction.

Running one of the most high-stakes senate campaigns in the nation, however, produces a lot of tap-dancing around the truth in an effort to convince voters that you’re for whatever position will garner the most votes come Election Day. 

In that regard, both Sheehy and PERC are scuttling sideways in their positions.  Given the overwhelming support for “keeping public lands in public hands” in Montana, PERC now claims it “firmly believes that public lands should stay in public hands. We do not advocate for nor support privatization or divestiture.”  

Funny that, given its previous and very long-held position that private ownership of lands and waters is the key to conservation.  Likewise, Sheehy’s position, “that “public lands must stay in public hands” is completely the opposite from the one he held only a year ago, and parrots PERC not only in its verbiage, but in its realization of which way public sentiment and the electoral winds are blowing.

Since what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of public lands in the Big Sky State, it behooves us to demand specific policy positions in writing from all candidates for public office — including the race for Montana’s Senate seat.