Any realtors reading?
Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.
Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:57:03 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com
So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?
Any person who has served his time in incarceration, is entitled to
live somewhere. Technically, YOU, the prospective neighbor is not
necessarily entitled to know that this person WAS ever incarcerated.
Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.
Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they are aware of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather area
dependant on disclosure laws.
In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save you
'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to 1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-). Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to pay
to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.
Are you sure about that? I would think it would be the reverse: Disclosure
immunizes you from being sued in that the buyer knew what he was getting.
Non-disclosure allows the buyer to presume nothing abnormal about the
Nope, as explained to me thats how it works 'here'. If you say you
'disclose' here, you are liable for anything and everything, even stuff you
didnt know about.
It's bad as partial disclosure would be better (if allowed).
in pennsylvania failure to disclose a deficency you know about makes
you liable after sale for the entire cost to fix whatever fails.
like the neighbor who sold a 100,000 home failed to disclose the main
sewer was bad.
new owner found previous plumber visits...... could prove deficency
cost old owner over 10 grand for new sewer, driveway, wall, entire
replacement and restoration.........
a very expensive lesson
You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.
My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom [*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.
[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?
I never said it wasn't. What your area (state) requires may match another
or may not be the same. I advised to look up the laws for the area
involved. Normally pretty easy to find.
Just wierd to me, but got same info from several realtors. I do not live in
a 'must disclose' state.
I'm not sure what the costs would have been in 1995 to bring it up to code,
only an estimate in 2007 that was very open ended as in 'we expect to find
more'. Of what I can recall besides the roof having to go up was the slab
had to be raised to level to the rest of the house (it's a 1.5 inch or so
drop). I thought that one very odd indeed. They seemed quite happy to make
it with no windows but spec'd out that if it had a window it had to be a
certain size... (The room has 2 doors so the window apparently isnt
required but i already have one bedroom with no windows and 2 doors).
You did when you said, "Laws may not *allow* the Realtor to
disclose...". It is perfectly legal to "disclose" public
It is *not* uncommon. I've had to do it twice now, in different
states. The last one was *very* strict. Agents get sued for non-
disclosure all the time, even though there was no way they *could*
have known. ...even if the homeowner obviously did, the agent gets
sued (deep pockets).
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.