I read an article this week about a California woman who
moved to Pennsylvania with her two daughters to be closer to her family after
her husband had died. She purchased a house, and a few weeks after they had
moved in she found out from a neighbor that there had been a murder-suicide in
her master bedroom the previous year. She claims that there is no way she would
have bought the house having known that, and she is appealing to the state
supreme court to get the sale rescinded and her money back, after both the
regular court and the appeals court ruled against her.
Here’s the timeline:
February 2006 – Man shoots his wife and then himself in the
home
October 2006 – Couple buys the tainted house, knowing about
the deaths, for $450,000.
June 2007 – California lady buys the house from the couple,
without the deaths being disclosed to her, for $610,000.
She and her lawyer, who are suing the sellers and their real
estate agents, maintain that sellers should be required to disclose troubling
events "at least for some period of time."
I am sure, given her situation, that she would not have
purchased the house if she had known the gory details of its recent past. It is
an unfortunate situation for her, but I’m going to have to side with the two
court opinions on this one. The logical side of me can’t make an exception in
any case, no matter how troubling the event may be. If "troubling
events" need to be disclosed, where does that end. How troubling is “troubling,”
and how long is “some period of time?”
“Troubling” is completely subjective. I have friends who
would hold a four-day candlelight vigil to mourn the loss of a goldfish, and I
have other friends who would buy the house and volunteer to help clean up the
bodies if it meant a lower purchase price. Pennsylvania may be holding firm,
but I live in California, the land of regulations. What if I want to sell my
house?
Since I’ve owned it, no one has died in the house, so I
might be in the clear, but how far will California take it. I mean, I’ve had
relatives die while I owned the house, and I was in the house when I found out,
and it was very troubling for me. Does that count?
Our three-year-old son broke his leg in this house. Do we
need to disclose that? I can assure you, it was a very troubling event, both for
him and his mom!
What if no one died, but 37 family pets met their demise on
the property? Still noteworthy? What if no person or animal ever died in the
house, but it was used for a nefarious purpose, like slave trafficking, or drug
dealing, or headquarters for the Russian mob’s door-to-door candy and magazine
subscription sales?
Where will it end once it starts? “The buyer of this real
property, commonly known as 123 Main Street, located on Lot 34-A of the Peterson
Tract of the Sunshine Estates Subdivision, as shown on Placer County plat map
number 882, shall be hereby officially notified that on or about the date of 3
November, 1986, one William “Billy” Johnson, aged eight years old at the time,
had his feelings severely hurt in or near the living room.”
Believe me, in California, the slope on that argument is not
that slippery. My natural skepticism combined with my logical mind leads me to
believe there is more to this story. If she doesn’t like the house any more,
she should sell it. One of my favorite old sayings when trying to get to the
bottom of a convoluted mess is “follow the money.” That is helpful advice in
most mysteries, including this one. Let’s look again at the timeline of the
sales:
October 2006 – House sells to couple for $450,000
June 2007 – Couple re-sells house to lady from California
for $610,000
So, in the span of eight months the house gained $160,000 in
value? I don’t know anything about the Pennsylvania real estate market, but I
know that gains of $20,000 per month in value are the stuff of magical dot com
stocks, not real estate. I do know a little about the California real estate
market, and $610,000 for the relatively modest house I saw pictured in the
article seems high even by our inflated west coast standards. The first sale
price of $450,000 even seems high.
Again, I’m sure she wouldn’t have bought the house had she
known about its creepy history, but let’s be serious. She moved from
California, land of overpriced housing, and blindly paid California prices for
a Pennsylvania house. Two weeks later, she found out about the murders. My
guess is, at that same time, she also found out about the last purchase price.
Like I said, if you don’t like it, sell it. And if you can’t sell it for what
you paid for it two weeks later, you paid too much.
I like old sayings. I always figured if a saying wasn’t
useful or worth its weight, it wouldn’t be an old saying. One of my other favorite
old sayings is, “buyer beware.” It is not practical to operate under the rule
that the seller of anything is responsible for how the buyer will feel about
their purchase. Especially things with a price tag as high as a house.
You should not be finding out about the murders or the home’s
actual value two weeks after you buy it. You should be finding out two weeks
BEFORE you buy it. Or in her case, before you don’t buy it.
The internet exists everywhere. Even in Pennsylvania. Use
it!
See you soon,
-Smidge
Copyright © 2013 Marc Schmatjen
Get your copy today for only $0.99!
Go get your copy of "The Tree of Death, and Other Hilarious Stories" for your mobile device’s free Kindle, Nook, or iBooks app. You’re going to love it!
No comments:
Post a Comment