lets assume the seller fails to disclose it, the new buyer moves in and a neigbor reports they had tile and removed it themselves.
the new owner has testing done for asbestos, it comes back positive and the home has to get asbestos professional cleaned.
the old owner is on the fancial hook for every expense involved including temporary housing for the family while home and all their possesions get professional cleaned, legal fees, etc etc.. because they failed to disclose the issue.
its better to disclose, because that way the old owner isnt liable for clean up at a future date, although it may cost them a sale
If I was buying I'd rather have it already removed than have to remove it myself. Worst case scenario you end up paying to have testing done in order to sell - chances of any problem turning up are very very slim to none.
Again, you manage to make the most innocuous event into a major calamity, Haller, first by presuming a bunch of events that are highly unlikely to occur (excepting for a neighbor like---well, maybe I ought not complete that explicitly :) ) and then blowing up a negligible or perhaps very minor hazard at worst to begin into a problem of the first magnitude.
Disclosure of known defects and conditions is a requirement, yes. Covering up a major defect that has clearly been a problem to the current owner is stupid and deservedly should come back and bite them, also yes. Spreading FUD as a high risk event on the basis of something as superficial as vinyl-asbestos tile is simply ludicrous and failing completely to have any concept whatsoever of what asbestos exposures actually have any risk associated with them. See the table in the link posted earlier.
You only disclose what you know. This is a good reason one NEVER TESTS for asbestos, or any of the other loony leftist sky-is-falling nonsense. One you know of an issue, you must disclose it. Bottom line, just remove the tiles, if they're ugly. Done.
There has to _be_ a problem first and there isn't/wasn't any problem here except the one you dreamed up out of your apparently inflated fearful imagination or from you desire to spread FUD and mostly _dis_information.
Remove the old cut back adhesive that held those old tiles down, too. It probably also has asbestos in it.
(But, it poses little danger as long as the floor is wet with the cleaning chemicals and/or water, there's not gonna be much airborne asbestos released.)
It's a big IF as to whether a state would require it to be disclosed at time of sale. AFAIK, in most places it's legal for a homeowner to remove their own floor tile that contains asbestos. I can show you states that outline the procedure, etc. Assuming you do it and follow the guidelines, unless the state you happen to be living in specifically requires disclosure of such removal when you go to sell, then you have nothing to disclose. There may be some states that do require it to be disclosed, but I don't believe it's the general case.
$$$ out of what account? They can't access any accounts you have unless they sue you, win and you don't pay. And when suing, they have some substantial burdens to overcome. And even after that, they have to prove actual damages as a result.
They can't demand a pro clean-up if there is no law that says a homeowner can't do it themselves, there is no contamination, etc. Now if they do testing and find contamination, then they have grounds to proceed.
and environmental tests, imagine if
Having a bad sewer line that you know about and fail to disclose is an entirely different ballgame. In that case, there is an existing problem. In the case of the tile, if you are permitted to remove it yourself, do so, and are unaware of any problem, then you have no existing problem.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.