ethics and a murdered owner (long) - Posted by Duncan (KY)

Posted by Anne_ND on September 22, 2004 at 20:42:02:


It sounds from his post like he owns (or manages) the MHP. If this is the case I’d suggest he go for the financed deal.


ethics and a murdered owner (long) - Posted by Duncan (KY)

Posted by Duncan (KY) on September 22, 2004 at 19:39:44:

I looked at a very nice '97 16 x 76 today that has been all but completely renovated. The owner was murdered by his wife and her lover. Perpetrators under lock and key for serious time in prison, at least some ‘good’ news. Ethical muddle has resulted.

First muddle: If I buy at whatever price or terms am I ethically obligated to disclose to a potential buyer that it happened? The man did say he had hired a professional hazmat crew and that he had documentation. Since it was a bloody event I’d make any offer contingent upon inspecting his documentation. The biohazard is the only thing that worries me personally, but I understand it diminishes the pool of willing buyers and subsequently the price. Perhaps here in Kentucky I’d be legally obligated to disclose and therefore don’t need to worry about the ethics of it?

Second muddle: His heirs are his wife and daughter equally. Since his wife can’t profit from her criminal act the little girl will inherit. I wonder how I’d feel about myself if I lowball a little orphan girl. I do know I’d hate myself if I overpaid, but what discount to fair market value is fair to apply to this situation? I guess I think I should divorce myself from the situation and offer what I would offer any person selling a comparable trailer for more mundane reasons. I wonder how hard an owner finance would be with the lawyers and judges and the convicted wife involved? Since I can offer substantially more that way and actually prefer to pay take it on terms it would be ideal. Since the object is to fill all those friggin empty spaces in my community I can also guarantee that the lot rent the estate is paying goes away.

Of course the whole thing is in probate and I suppose the wife has a legal claim until the wheels of justice get around to disallowing her. Maybe it’s just too darn complicated.

Perhaps a good discussion for the evening hours at the convention in Atlanta if anyone is interested. I’d sure like to hear thoughts from others on this one.

Re: ethics and a murdered owner (long) - Posted by rise2it

Posted by rise2it on September 23, 2004 at 11:05:39:

Only way I’d even attempt to deal with this would be if I were able to purchase it and immediately move it to another location.

You won’t have to dislcose, the neighbors will - Posted by Tony-VA/NC

Posted by Tony-VA/NC on September 22, 2004 at 19:50:37:

If this home is located in a mobile home park, I would walk away from the deal for now. Mobile home parks have a grapevine of information that works faster than the internet.

Every potential buyer that walks up to the door will find some neighbors rushing up to tell them about the killing that ocurred “right there in that home,” with all the morbid details to follow.

Do we feel for the “orphaned child,” of course. Although she is not orphaned, she was abandoned by a mother that made a choice, this was no accident.

All of the players involved, courts, heirs etc. will cause delays. If you were to buy now, the holding time while marketing will be much longer than usual.

Chances are this home will sit idle for many months. Eventually the park will likely end up with it one way or another and then you can decide to buy it for a few hundred bucks or pass all together.

Wait on this one and in the meantime, find other deals that you can move quicker.


Re: You won’t have to dislcose, the neighbors will - Posted by Duncan (KY)

Posted by Duncan (KY) on September 27, 2004 at 10:45:53:

Well, as I said, I am moving the home into my park. Since my park is darn near empty I’m not too concerned about neighbors disclosing. I’ve since found out the home has been empty for more than four years so staying vacant for months has already occurred. I came to my senses, valued the home based on the facts, and presented both a cash and an owner financed offer. It’s the responsbility of the estate to ascertain whether or not the offers are fair. I offered more for the financed offer because I prefer it, not because of the orphan girl. As far as disclosure is concerned I’ll ask my lawyer what Kentucky law is, and follow it. I’ve got plenty of time to wait as far as probate is concerned.

BTW, if you go to and look up the word orphan you will see that a common definition among various dictionaries is simply “to be deprived of parents”. But worrying about that is just semantic quibbling, with no real point, right?