On Oct 22, 4:28*pm, dpb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 12:27 PM, bob haller wrote:
...

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

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.

--

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!!!