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.
We frequently perform testing for methlabs and methamphetamine for buyers and when the tests demonstrate the house is in fact a methlab, the buyers almost always walk away from the property.
But why?
Colorado has a methlab disclosure statute and the buyer has a right to perform testing to determine contamination. If the “tests” confirm contamination, then the owner (usually the seller) is required by statute to either mitigate or demolish the house.
In fact, finding an house that contains methamphetamine may actually be to the buyer’s advantage, since it gives the buyer an huge negotiation hammer. For a start, the property is now stigmatized – so the market value is depressed; the property is now listed on a public database, so there’s no hiding the fact. Further, (in Colorado) once the declaration is made, entry is prohibited by virtually EVERYONE, including the owner, the occupant, and/or their representatives. Essentially entry is restricted to law enforcement and Industrial Hygienists (unless otherwise trained). So now, the house can't even be shown or maintained.
Furthermore, any items in the property (including clothing) is restricted from removal. So there becomes a huge stumbling block for the seller to unload the property.
Unquestionably an heartach for the owner/occupant.
But, is this a problem or an asset for the buyer? In Colorado, there is nothing to prohibit a buyer from purchasing the liability and performing the mitigation themselves. Far from the horror stories so favored by the news media, many methlabs can be easily remediated for very little cost, and with no renovations associated with the remediation. In fact, in Colorado, about 20% of the contaminated houses can be brought into compliance without any remediation (and the property owner now receives statutory liability immunity from future toxic tort cases).
Finally, most methlabs can be remediated such that any residual "contamination" may be no greater than that found on any dollar bill in circulation.
Anyone who is interested can read about Colorado’s (mostly) disastrous methlab real estate disclosure statute here:
In my state, it's all about mold and radon disclosure/testing.
I suspect one day, some states will require sellers to disclose knowledge of smokers living in the property and buyers will have the right to test for it and walk away if the results bother them.
Sounds like a lose/lose. Too much government involvement. It's bad for both the buyer and the seller, as well as the neighborhood. Nobody wins.
In Texas, our seller disclosure notices now include a question about meth labs. Of course the buyer can test for anything they want during the option period, but a seller has no obligation to do anything if traces of meth are discovered.
And how would you know the buyer didn't plant something to cause a positive test result with the hopes of negotiating a better deal?
Quote:
We frequently perform testing for methlabs and methamphetamine for buyers and when the tests demonstrate the house is in fact a methlab, the buyers almost always walk away from the property.
Does your testing distinguish between actual manufacturing of meth and the simple prsence of end-user meth in a home? How much is needed for a positive test.
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,315,772 times
Reputation: 6471
I have a buddy who ran the county sheriff's drug unit and he was telling me how meth is made. I know there's some nasty stuff in it, but the nasty stuff seemed to me to be mostly Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's).
For the Original Poster; Aren't those easily cleaned up/mitigated? I wouldn't want to be around while the witches brew is created, but once the "product" is created and all the excess material used in manufacture is dumped out, how contaminated is the site?
I know of one meth house that went on the market and I'd suspect what happend w/ this one would be the case with many. The house was in a very nice upper middle neighborhood but the owner got hooked on drugs and lost his business (and wife). He was able to con the mortgage company into letting him live there for another SIX MONTHS AFTER they foreclosed on it and they did not check on it either. For a good part of a year drugs were going on in this particular house being made, sold and used. Meth was one we suspected to be made there. Since the house was foreclosed on when the "owner" did finally move out he took a good chunk of the house w/ him and we believe to pawn for more money. Doors were ripped off the frames, anything electrical was ripped out including the switches on the walls, light fixtures, appliances, plumbing fixtures, pool equipment, etc. The house was basically TRASHED!
Once the bank put it on the market I did go thru it and saw it in that condition. The listing agent I guess lied to the mortgage company about the condition of the house because it was priced inline w/ the houses selling that were in TOP condition for that area. It did sell but to a flipper. The flipper fixed it up and then put it on the market and sold it after a few months. Since it had changed hands a few times from the time the drugs were in the home to the final buyers that actually LIVE in it I'm sure along the way it was not disclosed the former owners habits included drugs. Most banks/mtg comp don't have to disclose anything since it is an "as is" sale and they would have no known info about its past. Had any testing been done I don't know if it would have shown up w/ the way the house was stripped down to nothing.
As I said, I'd bet a huge majority of former meth houses probably end up as foreclosures and it would not be that person acting as seller.
I have been asked if it would be within a brokers "reasonable" duties to perform a "swipe test" on all homes, or at least those in which a neighbor suggests that meth has been used / produced in the home. Knowing that limited exposure can produce results, if the swab shows positive (not on a Industrial Hygienist test, but on a quick swab test) do you believe a positive result should allow / require a broker to offer "disclosure" of meth? Or, upon such testing, should a broker recommend to have it tested by a Industrial Hygienist who can actually respond to the results and give direction based on the levels of exposure.
I have been asked if it would be within a brokers "reasonable" duties to perform a "swipe test" on all homes, or at least those in which a neighbor suggests that meth has been used / produced in the home. Knowing that limited exposure can produce results, if the swab shows positive (not on a Industrial Hygienist test, but on a quick swab test) do you believe a positive result should allow / require a broker to offer "disclosure" of meth? Or, upon such testing, should a broker recommend to have it tested by a Industrial Hygienist who can actually respond to the results and give direction based on the levels of exposure.
The lunatics in the legislature put their lack of forethought on display by requiring disclosure of methlabs, rendering such properties as pariahs in a suffering market and now you're wondering if you should cast more doubts with unreliable swab tests????
Note: I am NOT advocating any sort of decriminalization of illegal drugs, but I think that this story illustrates just how messed up some of these "testing devices" are -- Businesses hit hard by meth testing - Whidbey News Times
You said yourself that the property is stigmatized. Why would anybody want to buy something that has a stigma attached to it as well as being in some database? Sure you might get a great deal on it, but that stigma is still there when YOU go to sell it. Most people probably don't want to buy into something that they'll never be able to get their money out of.
many of the contaminants can remain behind for decades, and can pose potentially extreme threats to human health.
Reason #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
You said yourself that the property is stigmatized. Why would anybody want to buy something that has a stigma attached to it as well as being in some database? Sure you might get a great deal on it, but that stigma is still there when YOU go to sell it. Most people probably don't want to buy into something that they'll never be able to get their money out of.
Interesting thread. It is refreshing to read about a topic from one who is quite knowledgeable.
Frank
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.
and they did not check on it either. For a good part of a year drugs were going on in this particular house being made, sold and used. Meth was one we suspected to be made there. Since the house was foreclosed on when the "owner" did finally move out he took a good chunk of the house w/ him and we believe to pawn for more money. Doors were ripped off the frames, anything electrical was ripped out including the switches on the walls, light fixtures, appliances, plumbing fixtures, pool equipment, etc. The house was basically TRASHED! 
Quick Swab Tests
