[WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement
Kary Krismer
Krismer at comcast.net
Thu Jan 13 13:10:13 PST 2022
I like the concept as long as there were some penalty for the buyer
abusing the process, perhaps similar to the statewide form's waiver of
inspection contingency provisions. I don't expect to see that out of
the legislature though.
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 1/13/2022 12:55 PM, Jennifer L White wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> /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
> <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
> *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 <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=>
>
>
> ***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/20220113/598ea3cf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 987192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220113/598ea3cf/image001-0001.jpg>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list