Posted by Ed Copp (OH) on July 29, 2000 at 18:39:20:
O.K. ScottE,
You are right about just one minor thing here (I DID NOT SAY).
I doubt seriously that you have the foggiest idea what constitutes the practice of law. As for the term “caveat emptor” it is part of the law like it or not.
So that is what I based my opinion on. The question was asked if there was recourse (after the fact) and my opinion was that the answer is NO. That is still my opinion. The situation of a presumed homicide in a property, where everyone in the neighborhood knows about it; and in a high crime area was probably a matter of public record. In other words what you see is what you get. It is not the job of the Realtor to guarantee that nothing bad has or will ever happen here, and it is possible that the Realtor did not know of the killing that took place in this former drug house. This does not make the Realtor financally responsible after the fact (referred to as recourse in the original post).
Now as for slamming Bill, I suggest you read the post again; simply because this did not happen…
About the code of ethics. I have nothing to do with the “why ?” of it so you might just want to ask them.
Disclosure of Known defects is the law in my state (OHIO) for the folks who have some sort of license to protect. That concept is often ignored by others.
The fact that a crime occorred on the property is not a defect. I mean that is a real stretch even for this creative forum. It was my opinion in the beginning that the buyer has no recourse in the matter stated. That is still my opinion. Now let me know where your ideas about the practice of law came from. You might start by explaining what you are talking about…ED
Help! - I bought what I thought was a great home for a low price even though it was in a high crime area. Now I found out that the home was used as a drug house and the owner’s son had been killed in the home (ugh!). It seems the neighbors all know about it (yeah, I guess I didn’t research this as well as I should have) and now I’m having lots of trouble renting it. Neither the RE agent nor the owner mentioned this to me during the sale. Do I have any recourse or am I stuck with this “deal”?
Posted by Ed Copp (OH) on July 29, 2000 at 15:32:03:
No is the answer to the question that you asked. Real estate law in the United states originates largely from Old English Common Law, based on the doctrine of CAVEAT EMPTOR. Which translates roughly to “let the buyer beware”.
Now about your difficulty finding a rentor, LOWER THE PRICE…ED
No, you probably don’t have any help from state law. It’s a death in a home, so what. Did you remove all evidence of such a death? Did the drug dealers stay with the home? No, I’m ssuming. So what’s the problem, unless they are still in the neighborhood working out of other homes. Then I think you have a bad neighborhood problem and not a killing/death problem. A death in a house is not a material defect. It’s not something that is going to “stay in the house and be with the property”. Nor, in this day and age is it even a stigma.
Are you sure there isn’t something else wrong with the property that you can’t rent it? Can you charge a little less on the rent to start with to make it more enticing?
In Texas, death by suicide, AIDS or natural causes or by accident unrelated to the property condition do not have to be disclosed. As for homicide (I’m assuming it was, since you said “killed”), you don’t have to disclose it, but it is recommended to do so. Check Illinois law for your case.
This is one of those things that varies by State. For example, under my states rules (ND) they don’t have to volunteer the information, but if the buyer asks then they have to tell.
In the Federal Supreme Court case of Johnson vs. Davis in 1985, caveat emptor in residential transactions became a thing of the past. Seller’s are now required to disclose all known material facts concerning the property.
Read the case on findlaw.com, you might be enlightened.
Posted by Rick Vesole on July 29, 2000 at 19:01:24:
Ed, you are right that old English commom law was Caveat Emptor. However, this is rarely the case anymore. Most if not all states have passed statutes abrogating the common law rule of Caveat Emptor. (Legislatures can do that). Also, the common law has evolved through case law, and I believe that most state would hold a seller liable for intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a latent defect. A person having died in the home would clearly be latent, since it is not something that would be readily observable by the buyer.
Also, most states through legislation require written seller disclosures of known defects. Whether the fact that a person died in the home is one of those things that would have to be disclosed or not is solely dependent on state law. It is not something that any of us who are not specifically familiar with that state’s law can answer without further investigation or research.
in response to Bronchick’s post above, you get all over Bill and extrapolate that he would be directing/advocating a REALTOR to deceive a lender. Yet here, you are fully suggesting that what the buyer doesn’t know, won’t hurt him.
If the agent/broker had knowledge of this nature (a murder) and didn’t disclose it, how is it okay in your mind to deceive a potential buyer?
Spirits Live! I own a house that I always hear noises in the walls, footsteps on the roof as well as in the house! These footsteps are not imaginary either! My wife, kids and dog hear them daily!!! They are here, and we can do nothing about them. So I think that disclosing the facts are very important here.
I had the priest and the police here and they have all heard the footsteps and distant moans and crys! No english has been heard but a strange compilation of some kind of words does certainly exist! “NO DOUBT ABOUT IT”!!
The spirits may be the previous owners (Husband & Wife with 2 kids) Murder Suicide case! (They have done absolutely no harm to anyone. There mere existence is all that I can testify to.
Rob- I was at Findlaw and had no luck finding Johnson vs.Davis except as a reference in an article from the Naples,Florida Daily News. You may be interested in the article as it mentions the case Pressman vs. Wolf which is going against the grain and is weighing in the favor of sellers. I couldn’t find the outcome of
Pressman vs. Wolf either. Hopefully, you’ll have some
luck.
in fact the law has progressed 180 degrees to strict liability. You needn’t look further than the recent tobacco trials to see this. People who were fully aware of, and knowingly assumed, the risks of smoking can STILL be compensated for damage caused by their choice to smoke.
if it’s okay to practice law in Pennsylvania (or Ohio for that matter) without a license. I could be mistaken, but if you are indeed a lawyer, I don’t recall you saying so.
Either way, you ineffectively skated the real issue and that is your blanket “caveat emptor”. If that’s the case, and it’s wholly the buyer’s responsibilty to find out everything about the property that is not clearly visible, why is there a Code of Ethics for REALTORs in place addressing deception or non-disclosure of known maladies?
