posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:20 PM
I found this article on yahoo, and I think it presents an interesting quandary. A kind of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" type
When Janet Milliken, 59, moved from California after her husband died, she had hoped to start a new life with her two teenage children in
Pennsylvania near her family.
She bought a home in Thornton, Pa., for $610,000 in June 2007. She learned a few weeks after she moved in from a next-door neighbor that a
murder-suicide had occurred the year before in her home.
She sued the seller and the real estate agent for fraud and misrepresentation, saying they made a "deliberate choice not to disclose the home's recent
past," according to a court document.
In addition, I think this next part of the story should be taken into consideration...
Rayne said Milliken, 59, was "disturbed" when she learned of her home's history from a neighbor. "As she was struggling what and if to tell the
kids," he said, her children's friends visited the home for Halloween and told the children about the murder-suicide. "They were very upset upon
learning about it and disturbed about the whole situation," Rayne said. "They were dealing with the death of a father and husband and wanted to move
closer to family, and then this happened to them," he said. "It was a tragedy all around."
The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, saying state law does not require agents to disclose such events.
The home in question.
OK. In my opinion, the reason this law isn't already on the books is because the state is worried about having unsaleable houses in more upscale
neighborhoods. This could hurt real estate prices, and lower the value of houses surrounding it as well. Buyers frequently look at houses around the
one they're purchasing, and vacant houses can add to the problem. Especially if they have a violent past.
So between the real estate brokers, and the local government, they've decided to keep things like this hush so as not to scare off potential buyers,
and lower values.
I'm curious to know how ATS feels about this scenario. Is it unethical to conceal a homes past in cases like these? Or do you feel it's justified to
let the buyer find out on their own after the sale has been made?
edit on 1/28/2013 by Klassified because: eta and
edit on 1/28/2013 by Klassified because: clarity
edit on 1/28/2013 by Klassified because: