Houses that were used as methamphetamine labs can cause the
new homeowners major health issues if not properly clean up before
moving in.

Sellers forced to disclose any problems with property

Saturday, January 17, 2004

By Jay MacDonald, Scripps Howard News Service

When your grandparents bought their first home, they did so at their
own risk. Back then, real estate was governed by the ancient Roman
dictum of caveat emptor.

Today, however, "let the buyer beware" has gone the way of gladiators
and chariots. Now, because of property disclosure requirements, it's
seller beware.

Thirty-two states mandate that home sellers present home buyers with a
form listing a property's known legal hindrances or physical defects.
Failure to do so could result in civil and criminal action, and in
some cases even rescission of the sale.

Some states have minimal disclosure requirements: Are there any
boundary disputes? Is the house connected to public sewers? Does the
roof leak?

In more stringent states, the list can run to 10 pages, reflecting a
variety of consumer or regional concerns, including earthquake damage,
mold, radon, insect infestations, even ghosts and paranormal activity.

"The hottest new trend is methamphetamine labs, because some residue
from that process is toxic," said Craig Cheatham, executive vice
president of the Association of Real Estate License Law Officials.
"Some states like North Dakota have a specific mention in their
requirements that if there has ever been a meth lab on that property,
it must be disclosed."

Another disclosure hot button in at least two dozen states is home
insurance.

"Arizona is coming out with an insurance disclosure where the seller
has to provide a report that covers the last five years because new
homeowners are increasingly having difficulty getting insurance," said
Sandy Taraszki, executive director of the Employee Relocation Councils
Coalition.

Disclosure can even reach beyond the property lines.

"Now you're getting into things like water rights because people are
struggling to get the resources that are vanishing as we try to share
the same things," Cheatham said. "That creek in the back yard used to
be all yours. Now you've got to make sure you've got rights to the
water in case somebody upstream takes it."

Meanwhile, once-touchy issues, such as whether the house was the scene
of a murder, suicide or AIDS-related death, have largely gone by the
wayside, in part to uphold the seller's right of privacy.

"We're getting very, very specific these days," Cheatham said. "The
pendulum swings various ways, from rights of privacy to consumer
rights. Just how bad does it have to be to be significant? People are
still trying to find their way on disclosure."

The move toward seller disclosure is a fairly recent one. Until the
late 1960s, the vast majority of real estate agents represented the
interests of home sellers exclusively. Buyers basically were left to
kick the tires and take their chances.

But with the rise of the consumer-rights movement and the buyer's
agent came a growing body of case law that overturned caveat emptor
and held both sellers and their agents liable for failing to disclose
major known defects to a buyer.

State Realtor organizations developed disclosure forms and encouraged
their use. By the late 1980s, state legislatures codified property
disclosure. The federal government even chipped in with a nationwide
disclosure requirement that all sellers of homes built before 1978
disclose the presence of lead-based paint.

Today, most brokers use some form of seller disclosure to protect
their sellers and themselves, even in states where it isn't required
by law. The National Association of Realtors is so bullish on
disclosure that the organization has included it in its code of
ethics, regardless of state law.

"It helps equip sellers and brokers who represent sellers to defend
themselves when the buyer claims he was not told something or was told
something incorrectly," said Ralph Holmen, NAR associate general
counsel. "There is a record of what the buyer was told.

"Also, when you provide that information fully and early, you avoid
[legal] problems completely. The buyer knows what he's getting, so
there isn't any litigation at all."

http://www.post-gazette.com/homes/20030117realcolp8.asp


===
"People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents."
-- Andrew Carnegie, 19th-century robber baron

"Ablang" wrote in message
...
Houses that were used as methamphetamine labs can cause the
new homeowners major health issues if not properly clean up before
moving in.

Sellers forced to disclose any problems with property

Saturday, January 17, 2004

By Jay MacDonald, Scripps Howard News Service

When your grandparents bought their first home, they did so at their
own risk. Back then, real estate was governed by the ancient Roman
dictum of caveat emptor.

Today, however, "let the buyer beware" has gone the way of
gladiators
and chariots. Now, because of property disclosure requirements, it's
seller beware.

Thirty-two states mandate that home sellers present home buyers with
a
form listing a property's known legal hindrances or physical
defects.
Failure to do so could result in civil and criminal action, and in
some cases even rescission of the sale.

so what about a problem that was unknown and had no symptoms/signs (or
the seller didn't know the signs)? for example: mold. what if no
mold is seen, but it's in the walls? and what if the ghost didn't
appear to the seller?