-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
death in my new house
- Thread starter suggah
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
applecruncher
Senior Member
tranquility
Senior Member
In CA, that would be a material fact which MUST be disclosed. Other states have similar requirements. I don't think Arkansas has a requirement, however, if the buyer can make the case it was a material fact, it could be a problem for the seller. In this case, I believe the key would be how notorious the death(s) were and how it would affect property value.
Info edit:
Actually a paper at:
http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/58-1-5.pdf
has a footnote indicating Arkansas has a similar statute. However, I could not easily find the statute. The only one I could find was you did not have to report a meth lab after state-approved remediation.
Info edit:
Actually a paper at:
http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/58-1-5.pdf
has a footnote indicating Arkansas has a similar statute. However, I could not easily find the statute. The only one I could find was you did not have to report a meth lab after state-approved remediation.
Last edited:
applecruncher
Senior Member
Why are you giving OP information about 1) California and 2) reporting a meth lab? What's the relevance?
>Charlotte<
Lurker
Why are you giving OP information about 1) California and 2) reporting a meth lab? What's the relevance?
He's not. He's giving OP a link to an article about stigmatized housing. He said he tried to find an actual statute, but the only one he could find pertained to meth labs.
applecruncher
Senior Member
I wasn't asking YOU. I can read; I know what was posted.
Again - California statutes and meth labs are not relevant.
FlyingRon
Senior Member
Tranq, perhaps you should read the statute. Depending on when the death occurred even in California, it's not actionable:
Civil Code 1710.2:
No cause of action arises against an owner of real
property or his or her agent, or any agent of a transferee of real
property, for the failure to disclose to the transferee the
occurrence of an occupant's death upon the real property or the
manner of death where the death has occurred more than three years
prior to the date the transferee offers to purchase, lease, or rent
the real property, or that an occupant of that property was afflicted
with, or died from, Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Type
III/Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus. As used in this section, "agent"
includes any person licensed pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code. As
used in this section, "transferee" includes a purchaser, lessee, or
renter of real property.
Civil Code 1710.2:
No cause of action arises against an owner of real
property or his or her agent, or any agent of a transferee of real
property, for the failure to disclose to the transferee the
occurrence of an occupant's death upon the real property or the
manner of death where the death has occurred more than three years
prior to the date the transferee offers to purchase, lease, or rent
the real property, or that an occupant of that property was afflicted
with, or died from, Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Type
III/Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus. As used in this section, "agent"
includes any person licensed pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code. As
used in this section, "transferee" includes a purchaser, lessee, or
renter of real property.
tranquility
Senior Member
I did read the statute. Note:
While the statute does not require, it does not protect. Without the protection however, it is considered a material misrepresentation if it was a gruesome or offensive death or if the value of the property was affected. A murder/suicide would meet this definition. But, I accept the point. The statute does not require disclosure.
To applecruncher, Um...I think >Charlotte< nailed it. Read the paper referenced for more.
and compare and contrast with the OPs question:
While the statute does not require, it does not protect. Without the protection however, it is considered a material misrepresentation if it was a gruesome or offensive death or if the value of the property was affected. A murder/suicide would meet this definition. But, I accept the point. The statute does not require disclosure.
To applecruncher, Um...I think >Charlotte< nailed it. Read the paper referenced for more.
Last edited:
applecruncher
Senior Member
Um, indeed. She didn't "nail" diddly.
OP is in Arkansas not California.
And whatever you did find vs what you didn't find vs what the topic is = irrelevant.
I have no interest in "reading the paper referenced". More drivel.
tranquility
Senior Member
Then, you can continue to post short, humorous answers which are so incomplete so as to be incorrect.
You see,
You see,
Is the correct answer. Which is VERY different from "no".
>Charlotte<
Lurker
If you had read it, you would have learned that some of it is pertinent to the OP's question. The paper is not specific to California. Page 4 of that paper states:
In recent decades, more than half the states have enacted “stigma statutes” limiting sellers’ and/or brokers’ liability for failure to disclose socalled psychological defects in residential real estate transactions.
The footnote associated with this sentence goes on to say that Arkansas is one of those states.
Last edited:
applecruncher
Senior Member
Indeed. Always a good idea.
Last edited:
tranquility
Senior Member
Which, of course, was done. Then, when asked, I pointed out the relevance and probable reason why the OP used the facts he did.