Whether chains are rattling, the floor is shaking or there is simply the knowledge that an evil deed was committed on the premises, you could possibly be dealing with a haunted house, or a "stigmatized property" sale.
Since liability issues on these types of transactions vary from state to state - what is the guiding principal for selling a haunted house?
In 1991, a case in New York provided some legal precedent on the matter.
Stambovsky v. Ackley
The owner of a house, Helen Ackley had reported the existence of numerous poltergeists in her home and had, in fact, publicized these occurrences in Reader's Digest and a local newspaper on three occasions. As a result, the home was placed in a five-home walking tour in the city and received an enormous amount of publicity. She even referred to the home in a article as a "Riverfront Victorian with ghosts."
Some of the interactions Ms. Ackley described to reporters included ghosts waking her each morning by shaking her bed. When spring break arrived she loudly proclaimed to the spirits that she did not have to wake up early anymore. On this, she insisted that they listened to her requests and the bed immediately ceased all shaking.
Despite the local notoriety, an unknowing buyer, Jeffrey Stambovsky signed a contract to purchase the home. On an agreed upon price of $650,000 he made a $32,500 down payment. Since Mr. Stambovsky was not from the area he claimed to have ignorance of the widely known haunting tales.
When the buyer subsequently learned of the haunting stories, he filed for a request of the rescission of his contract for the sale and also sued for damages citing fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Ackley as well as the Realtor®.
In ruling on this case, the court stated that since the existence of ghosts in the home had been widely reported, as a matter of law, the house was haunted.
However, the court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation action and stated that the Realtor® had been under no obligation to disclose the haunting to any potential buyers. The court affirmed that the law of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applied in this case so the buyer did not prevail.
Mr. Stambovsky subsequently appealed the case and won a reversal.
On appeal, the court stated that a "haunting" was not a condition that a buyer could fairly be able to ascertain through even the most thorough of home inspections. In this case, "the most meticulous inspection would not reveal the presence of poltergeists at the premises or unearth the property's ghoulish reputation in the community."
It further stated that the seller had taken unfair advantage of the buyer's ignorance. Since she had taken it upon herself to inform the community at large of numerous spirits roaming rampantly throughout the home, she owed no less to her perspective buyer.
The judge then rendered a somewhat entertaining opinion using the following phrases:
"In his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance," I am moved by the spirit of equity," "In this instance - who you gonna call?" and "The notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and quietly laid to rest."
I have no knowledge of whether or not the parties in question had any appreciation of the judge's sense of humor.
However, Mr. Stambovsky was finally let out of the deal and had his deposit fully refunded.
Subscribe to my blog
Copyright 2009 - Claudette Millette, President, TheBuyersCounsel - 800-392-1446 - E-mail
Learn More about Massachusetts Home Buyer Representation - Greater Boston and MetroWest Massachusetts - Serving Massachusetts Home Buyers Since 1992
Ashland, Holliston, Hopkinton, Natick, Newton, Northborough, Framingham, Shrewsbury, Sherborn, Southborough, Sudbury, Wayland, Westborough
;)
;)
