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
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
C
clare
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.
D
dpb
On 10/22/2012 12:27 PM, bob haller wrote: ...
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.
--
E
Ed Pawlowski
If I was buying, I'd just leave it in place. It is not bothering anyone unless it is an ugly color.
C
clare
I just don't like tiled basement floors.
K
krw
The buyer normally pays for such testing.
If it is, cover it.
B
bob haller
today anyone can sue over anything, and the costs can be a killer even if the buyer looses.
my advice is to disclose it, the worst that can occur is a lost sale, or perhaps having to get a asbestos check.
many people think asbestos is instant death, their perception is heir realty....
and at least in PA the disclosure statement talked of any past problem and what was dione to fix it
again my point no matter what anyone believes about asbetsos its better to disclose it!!!
D
dpb
On 10/22/2012 11:08 PM, bob haller wrote: ...
If you would have stopped there, ok...but, also, again, what the _form_ asbestos is in makes all the difference.
K
krw
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.
D
dpb
On 10/22/2012 11:08 PM, bob haller wrote: ...
...
...
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.
--
N
nestork
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.)
T
trader4
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.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.