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

Thu Jan 13 12:55:49 PST 2022

Why don’t they simply legislate a buyer’s right to inspect following execution of a PSA (pick a # of days) that cannot be waived? Some will use it, some will not. Every potential buyer has the opportunity to do it. It seems to me that would level the playing field of agents/sellers not accepting bids with inspection contingencies.

Jennifer L. White, Esq.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D8087C.AC37E1E0]

jen at appletreelaw.com<mailto:jen at appletreelaw.com>
PO Box 11037
Yakima, WA 98909
509.225.9813

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:16 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement

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<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DwMDaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=kDcM-fraYQNOZ1rCslLoMSSRXJQXmQVvRJbE6ymQGho&m=sNbl8uYa9PyPwBhncHOdQj_oTsxkTXzXb2lKuIIQVfM&s=4OU_3OA3Xspux6j7qI7kuKSRC1FsHwo6TguPcY7Qkig&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220113/0c1e7b91/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 987192 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220113/0c1e7b91/image001-0001.jpg>