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

[Kary Krismer]

Maybe reasonable knowledge?  Someone raised the point of not remembering 
what was in a title report they last saw 20 years ago when they bought.  
Although I'd question the need for any question that is answered on a 
preliminary commitment, like the covenants question.

But again, I'm not really focusing on the liability aspects of Form 17 
and that relationship to Alejandre v. Bull, etc, nor if I were going to 
change those line of cases would I restore negligent misrepresentation.  
It would just be the actual fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation, and 
I'm not so sure I agree with that change because a weak claim of fraud 
would prevent summary judgment.  I don't mind putting a great deal of 
due diligence on buyers, I just wish more sellers and agents would allow 
that by accepting offers with inspection contingencies.  The combined 
harm of contracts without inspection contingencies is probably far 
greater than the combined harm from provable fraudulent activity.

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

On 1/13/2022 12:06 PM, Catherine Clark wrote:
>
> I think if we remove the term “actual” and restore negligent 
> misrepresentation as a claim, that would solve the issue you raise.  
> Yes or no?
>
> 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 7:16 AM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement
>
> If you remove the seller knowledge requirements it would be impossible 
> to answer “yes” or “no” to the following questions of the residential 
> form.
>
> Any of the defect questions because there may be defects the seller 
> has not learned of. Actually that is almost certain, most sellers 
> learn a lot when they see an inspection report on their own property.
>
> 1C—Encroachments and boundary disputes.  The seller would need to 
> somehow know what their neighbors think.
>
> 1E—Easements that affect the buyer’s use (since the seller wouldn’t 
> know the buyer’s use).
>
> 1G—Studies that might affect the property.  Any number of government 
> agencies could have done studies on the area that might somehow affect 
> the property. Even periodic zoning processes might trigger that.
>
> 3D—Septic questions about original permitting and possibly even 
> pumping or inspection if the seller didn’t do those.  Also number of 
> bathrooms if that wasn’t specified back when the septic was put in.
>
> 4B—Has the basement flooded if there is no basement.
>
> 4C—Permits if the remodeling was done by a prior owner.
>
> 4G—Prior inspections since there is no date limitation and would 
> include prior ownership periods.
>
> 4J—Basement insulation if there is no basement.
>
> 5C—Woodstove certifications if the seller wasn’t the purchaser.
>
> 7B—Does the property contain fill dirt.  If the seller wasn’t around 
> when the property was developed there is no way of knowing that.
>
> 7E—Hazardous substances.  That would require extensive testing.
>
> 7F—Has the property been used for commercial or industrial purposes.  
> That would require knowledge back to territorial times.
>
> 7G—Soil or groundwater contamination.  That would require testing and 
> the contamination could be from other properties and totally unknown.
>
> 7I—Illegal dumping.  That could require knowledge prior to the 
> seller’s ownership.
>
> 7J—Drug manufacturing site.  That could require knowledge prior to the 
> seller’s ownership.
>
> 9B—Did prior owners make any modifications to a Manufactured Home.  
> That would require knowledge prior to seller’s ownership.
>
> 9C—Were permits obtained for those modifications.  Same problem.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
> John L. Scott, Inc.
> 206 723-2148
>
>
> ***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/20220113/006746a2/attachment.html>