[WSBARP] Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission period after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property disclosure statement?

[Kary Krismer]

I don't know about the legislative history, but I think the purpose is 
likely related to the inspection process.  From the inspection response 
the seller will frequently learn of new conditions to the property and 
the amendment merely keeps the seller from needing to amend the 
disclosure statement --for that particular sale to that particular buyer.

Also, the purpose of the disclosure statement is to disclose conditions 
to the buyer.  If the buyer informs the seller that purpose would not be 
fulfilled because the buyer by definition already knows.

What you're getting at is seemingly more what are the buyer's remedies 
if they discover the disclosure statement was inaccurate.

Kary L. Krismer
John L. Scott, Inc.
206 723-2148

On 3/31/2020 10:14 AM, Rod Harmon wrote:
>
> As originally enacted in 1994, RCW 64.06.040 required a seller to 
> amend the seller disclosure statement if the seller became aware of 
> additional information which made any of the disclosures inaccurate.  
> An amendment starts a new three-business-day rescission period.  In 
> the 2009 amendments, that requirement was amended to limit the duty to 
> amend to situations in which "the seller ((becomes aware))_learns from 
> a source other than the buyer or others acting on the buyer's behalf 
> such as an inspector_ of additional information … which makes any of 
> the disclosures made inaccurate."  With that amendment, if the buyer 
> discovered the additional information after the three-business-day 
> period expired but before closing, the seller was not obligated to 
> amend the disclosure statement.  For example, say the buyer discovers 
> that the property is in an environmentally critical area and the 
> disclosure statement says it is not. Because the rescission period had 
> expired, the buyer would not be able to use the disclosure statute to 
> rescind. This seems strange to me.
>
> I can see how in that case the buyer could rescind on a common law 
> ground, preserved under RCW 64.06.050. Specifically, the buyer could 
> rescind based upon a mutual mistake about a material fact, or, if the 
> seller knew of the ECA designation, unilateral mistake by the buyer 
> and concealment by the seller.  But I am having trouble understanding 
> why the legislature amended the statute so that the buyer could not 
> use RCW 64.06  to rescind the contract. I did not find anything in the 
> legislative history that addresses it.  I would appreciate any insight 
> anyone has into the reason for this amendment. I am hoping someone on 
> this listserv had a hand in drafting it.
>
> Rod Harmon
>
> **
>
> *RODNEY T. HARMON*
>
> *Attorney at Law*
>
> P.O. Box 1066
>
> Bothell, WA   98041
>
> Tel:   (425) 402-7800
>
> Fax:  (425) 458-9096
>
> www.rodharmon.com <http://www.rodharmon.com>
>
> rodharmon at msn.com <mailto:rodharmon at msn.com>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/8d41cc6f/attachment.html>