Friday, January 4, 2013

THIS HOUSE IS CLEAN:  Even though Plaintiff alleged that "following her family moving into the house, various paranormal events have transpired," the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that it does not constitute the failure to disclose a material defect when a home seller fails to disclose that a murder-suicide took place on the property the previous year.  In part, the Court writes:
[H]ow can a monetary value possibly be assigned to the psychological damage to a house caused by a murder? The psychological effect will vary greatly from person to person. There are persons for whom no amount of money would induce them to live in such a house, while others may not care at all, or even find it adventurous.... The fact that a murder once occurred in a house falls into that category of homebuyer concerns best left to caveat emptor. If psychological defects must be disclosed then we are not far from requiring sellers to reveal that a next-door neighbor is loud and obnoxious, or on some days you can smell a nearby sewage plant, or that the house was built on an old Indian burial ground.

17 comments:

  1. Adam B.9:56 AM

    For the Delaware Valley folks: this topic's been on my mind recently, ever since I learned a former colleague moved her family this summer into the former Rabinowitz residence. Yeah, that one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is that a HIMYM reference in there?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That directly contradicts what I was taught when studying for my Realtor's license in the late 1990s.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adam B.10:26 AM

    Your state's laws may have been different -- or was it PA?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adam B.10:26 AM

    Not on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Adam B.10:37 AM

    DOWISETREPLA?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jordan11:20 AM

    Since this case takes place in DelCo, it reminds me of when I grew up in DelCo, and my parents told us we were moving (1993?). I remember them looking at a house that they could get a good deal on because the previous owner had met an untimely end in it. I was having nothing of it, but I remember my dad saying something along the lines of you don't have to worry, it's all cleaned up (or something like that, it's been 20 years). I dodged a (metaphorical) bullet when our house didn't sell and we put off moving for a year. We ended up moving out of the county entirely to a nice quiet neighborhood where nothing ever happens a block and a half from the Rabinowitz residence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Pathetic Earthling11:51 AM

    My parents built a house on a lot where there had been a murder-(attempted) suicide of a 75 year old woman by her 80ish year old husband. There were no shortage of bids on the lot, I assure you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Odd coincidence in that I was looking up the other day what was going on with the John Wayne Gacy lot in Norwood.Park. Apparently the old house was razed and a new one built in 1988 and the address slightly changed. Nice house, too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. lisased8:28 PM

    For some reason, that would bother me. I would be too worried there would be just one body they didn't find.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, Lisa, in this case you might be right. There was more digging this year (though at a different location) looking for more possible victims.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Adam C.2:02 PM

    I think I'd want a deed restriction: No digging, no dogs in the yard.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Adam C.2:07 PM

    This was actually something that bothered me about American Horror Story, Season 1: How was it that Dylmot McRony and Mrs. Coach didn't find out about the infamy of the house before settlement? I mean, I'm not even talking about the paranormal activity - you'd need to live there for a while. I'm just talking about Googling the address.

    ReplyDelete
  15. lisased9:59 PM

    It wasn't in the script?

    ReplyDelete
  16. It was PA. And even if it were technically legal, it would be highly unethical not to divulge any such knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  17. although not a basis to grant summary judgment, i don't believe for a second this was plaintiff's reason for wanting damages, but rather a complaint about the value of the house relative to when purchasers bought it versus where it might have been now. the obvious solution is to sell the house if really creeped out rather than try to get money from the prior owner, which is why we didn't see this litigation 10 years ago.

    ReplyDelete