[WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement

[Catherine Clark]

Thank you.  Great ideas.

Catherine “Cat” Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
Email: cat at loccc.com<mailto:cat at loccc.com>



NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information transmission is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 6:35 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement


Back after Alejandre v. Bull came out I was critical of the decision, but I've come to appreciate both it and Douglas v. Visser a great deal, but that's because those decisions should (but somehow don't) encourage seller inspections.  And in fact I think very little about Form 17 when I think of those decisions.  My recent Bar Bulletin article that touched on those cases didn't even mention Form 17.  Today I'd be reluctant to roll back that line of cases because today's market has proven we need something to encourage seller inspections--the message just needs to get out to sellers so that they again are more likely to allow inspections (and stop the problematic practice of seller inspections).

Accordingly I would agree with the second suggestions below, but not the third.  The first suggestion would raise the question of how a seller is to answer if they don't have actual knowledge.  Do they have to call in experts to advise them of every condition of the property?  That would lead to the same result this legislation might lead to--sellers simply not filling out Form 17 and risking buyers backing out.  The fourth is a bit too broad since it would virtually eliminate the need to ask any questions given the "other material defect" answer.

My suggestion is a more basic change that would be to still not require information obtained from inspections to trigger an amendment of Form 17 for that particular transaction, but would expressly allow other information obtained from the buyer as well as a request from the buyer for an accurate answer, to trigger the need for an amendment so that the buyer could then back out.  So, for example, the buyer could point out question X wasn't answered, or question Y was answered correctly and trigger the need for an amendment (if true), allowing them to again able to back out for 3 days.

That would deal with the issue of sellers who put little or no effort into answering the questions, and also deal with the sellers who deceive.  Either would be at risk of the buyer backing out well into the transaction no matter the other terms of the contract.

Kary L. Krismer

John L. Scott, Inc.

206 723-2148
On 1/12/2022 5:42 PM, Catherine Clark wrote:
I have alerted friends who work with brokers to the issue.  I’ll be offering a report to the WSAJ (where I am also a member) as part of its legislating efforts this year.  If you’d like your comments included (either anonymously or with credit), please let me know.

My thought is that while this is all a nice try, it doesn’t matter because of the application of the economic loss rule (alejandre v bull) and its molting into the independent duty doctrine.  Under Carlisle homes, fraud survives such a challenge but negligent misrep and innocent misrep were dispensed with.

Seems to me that if you want to give the buyers some help, and limit the impact of Douglas v Visser on Buyers (holding that where a buyer has notice of a defect, they have a duty to make further inquiries of the seller in a fraudulent concealment case; similar to the duty to inquire if you find something funny recorded), you would do the following:


  1.  Remove the “sellers actual knowledge language”
  2.  Keep the “don’t know” option.
  3.  Add another section that a buyer of real estate may make claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation or innocent misrepresentation as a way out of Alejandre et al.
  4.  Add another section that the buyer has the right to rely on the statements made in the disclosure statement and need not inquire further (this exists in the common law as I understand it when an affirmative statement of fact is made—there are other cases on this).

All comments welcome.

Thank you.

Catherine C. Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220113/11b584e5/attachment.html>