death in my new house

[suggah]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? arkansas

i bought a house only to find that there was a murder/suicide less than three years ago in it. is the realtor required to tell me this?

 

[FlyingRon]

No. Just because someone died there doesn't constitute a "defect" in the house.

 

[xylene]

Purple Drapes. AHHHHH!

One mans horror show is another mans dream house.

 

[applecruncher]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? arkansas

i bought a house only to find that there was a murder/suicide less than three years ago in it. is the realtor required to tell me this?

No.

Call Ghostbusters.

 

[tranquility]

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.

 

[applecruncher]

The only one I could find was you did not have to report a meth lab after state-approved remediation.

Why are you giving OP information about 1) California and 2) reporting a meth lab? What's the relevance?

 

[>Charlotte<]

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]

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.

I wasn't asking YOU. I can read; I know what was posted.
Again - California statutes and meth labs are not relevant.

 

[FlyingRon]

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.

 

[tranquility]

I did read the statute. Note:

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 offer

and compare and contrast with the OPs question:

there was a murder/suicide less than three years ago in it

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.

 

[applecruncher]

To applecruncher, Um...I think >Charlotte< nailed it. Read the paper referenced for more.

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]

Then, you can continue to post short, humorous answers which are so incomplete so as to be incorrect.

You see,

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.

Is the correct answer. Which is VERY different from "no".

 

[>Charlotte<]

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.

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 &#8220;stigma statutes&#8221; limiting sellers&#8217; and/or brokers&#8217; 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.

 

[applecruncher]

Tranq, perhaps you should read the statute.

Indeed. Always a good idea.

 

[tranquility]

Which, of course, was done. Then, when asked, I pointed out the relevance and probable reason why the OP used the facts he did.