DIYbanter - View Single Post - Prospects of selling a house next door to a "reformed" spree killer?

krw[_3_]

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor
and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

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.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

You ****ing idiot, it *IS* public knowledge in many states and
web searchable for those convicted of "sex crimes", whether
the crime is kiddie porn, child rape, or a college hazing prank.

Pity we happen to be discussing a SPREE KILLER, ****wit.

Pity *you* haven't been able to keep up, Ronnie.

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 here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house.

But which didnt include anything about the neighbours.

Do try to keep up, Ronnie.

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

Gee Ronnie, that was a pretty snappy comeback, at least for you.

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.

So it was in fact completely useless.

So, in fact you are as stupid as you pretend on the Usenet.

We'll see...

We have.

I still *had* to disclose,

No you didnt, most obviously if you hadnt used a ****wit agent.

You're going down from stupid, fast. The law has nothing to do with
Realtors, other than they're caught in the middle too.

but could describe exactly the circumstances.

And it was in fact completely useless liability wise anyway.

The only thing being talked about here that is "useless" is 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.

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.

Your problem.

Obviously, you stupid ass!

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

SOmetimes the retarded have to be told the obvious, Ronnie.

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Those who arent stupid enough to spend more on more house when they dont need that.

You certainly are a dumb ****!

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

You didn't "get" the obvious, so it had to be explained in terms you
can comprehend. Not my problem, Ronnie.

--
Keith