Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Subjective items that may diminish value for some people are not necessarily fact. Ergo, are not material fact.
Look at this thread.
There is strong disagreement whether this little foible diminishes sales value.
It is definitely a subjective item. To promote it as a material fact is a violation of duty to the seller.
It is not the same as an item that can be objectively defined, such as an encroachment, easement, EIFS, and many etceteras.
The NC REC legal staff will back me on this thread's example.
Mike I am a little Po'd at you. You have sent me deep into one of my closets for my Black's Law Dictionary! (Not only is it a huge chore digging this book out, but it brings back nothing but ugly memories!)
Material Fact: Securities. To be a "material" fact within the Securities Act of 1933, it must concern information about which an average prudent investor ought reasonably be informed before purchasing a security. With respect to securities fraud violations, a material fact is one that a reasonable man would attach importance to in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question. An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial liklihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote.
I am not disputing that NC does not consider a suicide or a murder something that needs to be disclosed. However, I think that anything about a piece of real estate that a reasonable person would consider should be disclosed. It does not matter that some people do not mind that a suicide has taken place, what matters is that some measurable amount of people do care, hence the resale value will be affected.
Mike I am a little Po'd at you. You have sent me deep into one of my closets for my Black's Law Dictionary! (Not only is it a huge chore digging this book out, but it brings back nothing but ugly memories!)
Material Fact: Securities. To be a "material" fact within the Securities Act of 1933, it must concern information about which an average prudent investor ought reasonably be informed before purchasing a security. With respect to securities fraud violations, a material fact is one that a reasonable man would attach importance to in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question. An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial liklihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote.
I am not disputing that NC does not consider a suicide or a murder something that needs to be disclosed. However, I think that anything about a piece of real estate that a reasonable person would consider should be disclosed. It does not matter that some people do not mind that a suicide has taken place, what matters is that some measurable amount of people do care, hence the resale value will be affected.
Back into the recesses of my closet I go
Cody, Have a cold one.... You've earned it.
Interesting, but as the broker for the seller, the listing agent is in a situation of not diminishing value via gratuitous disclosure of subjective topics.
You are reasonable. You say this should be disclosed by the listing agent.
I am reasonable. I say it is not a material fact as defined by the NC REC legal folks. I say it should not be disclosed by the listing agent as a matter of duty to the client, and is a matter of caveat emptor in NC Real Estate practice.
The OP has been sorely belittled on this thread for the concern, reflective of the broad disagreement as to the reasonableness of the concern.
FWIW, as a buyers' agent; suicide, murder, tragic death, etc., are items of which I would inform my buyers immediately upon learning of them, and prior to viewing if I had that prior knowledge.
Would I legally have to disclose? Probably not. It is not a material fact in relation to the property or improvements thereupon.
Would I be stupid not to inform them? Unquestionably, yes. I would let my clients make decisions on the suitability of the property.
We are working on a broad disclosure of various topics for the entire office, and this is an interesting point in drafting the text.
Looking forward to legal review of a more developed draft of the office disclosure.
I personally would not wish to buy a home where a violent death occurred. Not because of spirits, karma, or whatnot. I would be concerned about the resale factor. However, I guess one would have to factor in the locale of the house. My wife grew up in a 250+ year-old farmhouse/estate in Bucks County PA where lots of homes that claim to be haunted. A ghost actually seems to add value to the property.
I can only imagine the number of people who have died in a house so old. One former owner is buried right in their front yard. We run all over his grave whenever we play croquet/kickball with the kids. Cycle of life...
However, homes here for the most part tend to be fairly newish, so the thought of violence would turn off a lot of buyers. No "quaint" factor.
I moved here after Nancy Cooper was murdered, and correct me if I am wrong; don't many believe that she was killed in her home? Yet, the Cooper home did sell for a bit of a profit. So, there are buyers out there who are willing to overlook such things. I am glad that someone bought the house as any leftover proceeds will presumably help support her children.
I'm just dumbstruck. I can't imagine that a death in a home would need to be disclosed. I'll admit that I must be a bit naive about how people will react, because I'm just totally confused by the divided reaction here - I am stunned that anyone would expect that to lower a home's resale value.
For those who think it should be disclosed, or who are turned off by the idea of buying a home where someone came to their end, how do you feel about these scenarios in the real-estate arena:
-a house where someone was born
-a house where someone was abused
-a house where someone was sexually abused
-a house where someone had an affair
-a house where someone smoked crack
-a house where someone operated a huge investment fraud
Should we seek disclosures for all of the above? What does it mean if something sinister did happen in your home? Life isn't a Stephen King novel; I somehow doubt anyone will turn into Jack Torrance.
You just proved a most important point Tootie the Brave: that yes, apparently half of us are irrational when it comes to home buying. Therefore there will likely be a 50% reduction in potential buyers when it comes time for resale. I would prefer to keep my potential buyer pool as high as possible, regardless of my personal feelings as to what sad/happy events have occurred in a home. Since when is buying a home a rational decision? People reject homes because they don't like the paint on the wall, even though it is fairly easy to change. I believe that the OP made a wise financial decision in retracting their offer.
NCInMyMind, I don't care about the personal decisions that are made when one chooses a house, and yes, I agree completely that buying a home is rarely a rational decision (and I don't think rationaliztion is necessary when a home just feels absolutely right, as long as it's affordable). I'm simply arguing that it's a little absurd to be required to disclose what I've listed above, as well as deaths in the home. If someone purchases any house that has been previously occupied (and I'd guess that any new construction has been "pre-tested" by many a teenager smoking some weed or getting it on), I'll bet you $478 that something happened there that the buyers are dead-set against. But if you make it all the to closing, without suspecting a thing, and then you are told after the fact, how does that change your mind? It's one thing if you have some 6th sense and see dead people on your lot all the time, but I don't hear much tell about that. So if you're not affected by the people who die on your property, why would you even give a lick? Think of it this way: it's probable that someone, at some point, actually died on the soil on which you live. Does that fact make your property unliveable?
There's no way I would buy a house that someone died in....whether it be homicide, suicide or even natural cause! In fact I would never buy a house that was once a known drug house, where a sex offender lived, where someone was raped or any other horrible event happened. There's far too many homes out there that one can choose from (or have built) so there is no reason for me to even consider a home with a sordid past. It's one of the biggest investments you can make and for me those things would clearly be a deal breaker! It's nice to know though that there are many people out there that wouldn't care and would buy these homes! It's just not for me!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have a cold one.... You've earned it.
Touché
