# Couple buy a house and then sue because of undisclosed double murder



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

This is an interesting test case before the courts. A couple bought this house in Bomanville Ont and discovered
that after they bought it that a double murder had occured inside 15 years ago.

Not trying to second guess how successful they could be in the courts suing the realtor, but if the seller who bought it afterwards was not aware of it, and there is no law to disclose it in the first place, then there should be no case..buyer beware...and get on with life..or put it up for sale, if they feel that strongly about it. 

I would guess that a home inspection would not necessarily reveal any "ghosts" still inside, and there would probably be no DNA evidence still on the walls, floors etc after 15 years.

I'm not sure how others would feel about buying a house with this history, but if it was me and the incident occurred
that many years ago..it probably wouldn't bother me..if the house was priced "right". 

Of course, if I had to buy it with "fluid" stains on the carpets that were related to the incident, I would think twice and walk away because of health concerns.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...r-over-sale-house-where-double-200351513.html


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

I guess if someone wanted to buy the Tower of London they'd expect a substantial discount?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> I guess if someone wanted to buy the Tower of London they'd expect a substantial discount?


The Americans (when their economy was in better shape) bought London Bridge (famous children's nursery rhyme),moved it, stone by stone to the US. and rebuilt it in the Arizona desert in Lake Havasu City. 

I'm sure that if the Tower of London was offered for sale, with it's pass notoriety of royalty meeting their demise...someone would buy it and turn it into a museum of horrors and charge a substantial admission to see all the implements etc...but lets go back to the reality here..this is an ordinary house on an ordinary street..


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> The Americans (when their economy was in better shape) bought London Bridge (famous children's nursery rhyme),moved it, stone by stone to the US. and rebuilt it in the Arizona desert in Lake Havasu City.


 I have cycled/walked over it many times.....in its current locale.



carverman said:


> I'm sure that if the Tower of London was offered for sale, with it's pass notoriety of royalty meeting their demise...someone would buy it and turn it into a museum of horrors and charge a substantial admission to see all the implements etc...but lets go back to the reality here..this is an ordinary house on an ordinary street..


Just a matter of scale, is all.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

They will probably win the case, I'm sure.

If it was me, I wouldn't care. I would buy a house that had 500 murders in it. What's the difference if someone died inside or not? Ghosts don't even exist. (to me, of course :rolleyes2

In fact, I _wish_ this happened to me, just so I could be the one prosecuting! :biggrin:


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

It would matter to me for sure. We don't understand what kind of negative energy is inside the house and it doesn't have to be ghosts. There are a lot of things we don't understand about our universe or our world.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

dogcom said:


> It would matter to me for sure. We don't understand what kind of negative energy is inside the house and it doesn't have to be ghosts. There are a lot of things we don't understand about our universe or our world.


^ lol.

What about all the wars we've had?

What about all the dead soldiers, or car accidents, or the dogs buried in people's backyard? Should we not swim in lakes or oceans because of the dead fish?

It doesn't make a single ounce of difference.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I would be hesitant to buy the place for fear that laws may change 20 years down the road to require disclosure of deaths. And thus decrease the resale value due to a high percentage of paranoid crazies that wouldn't buy the place.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> 1. I would guess that a home inspection would not necessarily reveal any "ghosts" still inside
> 2. and there would probably be no DNA evidence still on the walls, floors etc after 15 years.
> 3. I'm not sure how others would feel about buying a house with this history....if the house was priced "right".


1. LOL, but yes, there is help from Ray Parker Jr.:

'Ghostbusters'.

*If there's something strange in your neighborhood
Who you gonna call?
Ghostbusters!
If there's something weird and it don't look good
Who you gonna call?
Ghostbusters!* :biggrin:

2. Even if there was any evidence left, you would need forensic inspectors as others would hardly know anything about STR's & mtDNA, but maybe in the future, LOL. 

3. I probably would not want to live in such a home, regardless of beauty/location/price, but idk as I have never tried to buy a 'psychologically tainted property' yet. 

Scroll down to 'Sale of the Gonzales home'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales

But I'm sure that here, the seller's entitlement to privacy will win the case.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

If there is no law to disclose it than they have no leg to stand on, the lawyer is simply milking them.
Not only they have to live with ghosts :encouragement: but now they also got themselves into supporting lawyer's private school for children or his new cottage:hopelessness:


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> If there is no law to disclose it than they have no leg to stand on, the lawyer is simply milking them.


Whoops. I missed the 15 years part.

It's to my knowledge you only have to disclose for 3 years.

I guess they are SOL.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> ^ lol.
> 
> What about all the wars we've had?
> 
> ...


I said negative energy and not some accident or normal cause of death. Don't suppose you or anyone else on this forum know what is out there because we don't. The way man gets ahead is by believing anything is possible and strives to make it happen. I am sure 100's of years ago you would mock me for saying the world, is round and goes around the sun. I don't necessarily believe in ghosts or anything but I do believe anything is possible.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> ^ lol.
> 
> What about all the wars we've had?
> 
> ...


I have to agree with Dogcom, I wouldn't buy it if I knew. I wouldn't sue either if I found out afterwards, but for me, it just something that would make me feel uneasy. I do believe in karma, and don't want any more negative energy than I need. 

I know a few years ago, there was a huge case of a local couple embezzling millions of dollars, they were caught, and alot of their assets were sold. There were some REALLY high end items such as Rolexes, cars, etc that were being sold at crazy prices. They could have easily been purchased and resold for more. I went out of curiousity, but wouldn't buy because I didn't feel right about buying something that others had occured a lost for. These were major loses. This is just me, I am not sentimental, nor paranoid, but for some reason double murder house isn't for me.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> Whoops. I missed the 15 years part.
> 
> It's to my knowledge you only have to disclose for 3 years.
> 
> I guess they are SOL.


Is there a law mandating disclosure of murder within last 3 years? I thought Ontario doesn't have any laws or regulations regarding that.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> Is there a law mandating disclosure of murder within last 3 years? I thought Ontario doesn't have any laws or regulations regarding that.


I'm pretty sure. Let me google it.

Actually, according to this article, it only applies to the country of Quebec and it does not apply to Canada. My mistake.

http://www.thestar.com/article/222628--should-vendor-disclose-a-property-s-past


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Maybe ignorance is bliss in this case. Only the lawyers win in this case.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Only the lawyers win *in this case.*


Don't lawyers *ALWAYS* win, if you think in $$$s?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> This is just me, I am not sentimental, nor paranoid, but for *some reason double murder house isn't for me*.


Interesting. So it appears that there are some people out there that probably wouldn't buy a house if a murder had occurred in it. I remember the Bernardo/Homolka case back in the 90s where two school girls were murdered in the house that they rented in St. Catherines. On. 
In the end, the house was simply razed to the ground and the lot sold. A new house was built on
the lot and people have short memories. 



> With murder houses, the severity of the stigma depends on a few factors, said Barry Lebow, a forensic real estate expert based in Toronto. A well-established neighbourhood with longtime residents will remember the murder and continue to associate it with the house, Lebow said. It also depends on how notorious the murder was, and whether the house was prominent in media coverage of the crime.
> 
> A study by two business professors at Wright State University in Ohio found that "stigmatized" or "psychologically affected" houses take 50 per cent longer to sell at an average price that's 2.4 per cent below comparable properties. A gruesome, high-profile murder can lower a selling price by as much as 15 to 35 per cent.
> 
> ...


So there you go..if you find out that somebody died of criminal acts on your property..just paint the garage door a different colour..and maybe change the brass numbers to plastic..simple solution.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> Is there a law mandating disclosure of murder within last 3 years? I thought Ontario doesn't have any laws or regulations regarding that.


I believe that it's only structural issues that have to be disclosed..UFFI, basement leakage, foundation cracks, black mold,grow op,
etc.
There is no real estate law (yet) that requires the owner to disclose "psychological issues" if the evidence has been thoroughly removed, decontaminated and safe to live in. 
Now if there was a decomposed body found in the house..that may be another story.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> 1. UFFI
> 2. Now if there was a decomposed body found in the house..that may be another story.


1. Had to google that one....urea formaldehyde foam insulation.....what an informative forum. :encouragement:
2. LOL.

More on 'types of stigma' in other parts of the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmatized_property


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

Normally I side against lawyers and suing and all that. But I'm on the side of the couple here. That would creep me out.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> 1. Had to google that one....urea formaldehyde foam insulation.....what an informative forum. :


That was a bad acronym back in the 70s.T.G. The Provincial gov'ts at first offered insulation incentives to have owners insulate with UFFI..only to find out later that the off gassing made people very sick. In the end, it cost over 10-20 times to remove the insulation from homes over what savings was passed on to the owners by the provincial incentives. It was also extremely
difficult to sell a house that UFFI installed, property values dropped drastically..and the gov't did not step in to help..it had to be done at the homeowner's expense. :rolleyes2:



> More on 'types of stigma' in other parts of the world:


The AIDs issue would definitely put me off, unless the entire house was disinfected.

Recently I saw the Marketplace expose on hotel room cleanliness..with all sorts of bacteria everywhere including C-difficile and MRSA..yowza!
MRSA is a antibiotic resistance bacteria that feed on human flesh..almost like flesh eating disease!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> Recently I saw the Marketplace expose on hotel room cleanliness..with all sorts of bacteria everywhere including C-difficile and MRSA..yowza!
> MRSA is a antibiotic resistance bacteria that feed on human flesh..almost like flesh eating disease!


Yikes, I saw that, but can't say that I was surprised that even top hotels can be so filthy.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

carverman said:


> I believe that it's only structural issues that have to be disclosed..UFFI, basement leakage, foundation cracks, black mold,grow op,
> etc.
> There is no real estate law (yet) that requires the owner to disclose "psychological issues" if the evidence has been thoroughly removed, decontaminated and safe to live in.
> .


Exactly, and it's not a question of being creepy, unethical or anything else, it is only a question of being legal or not. In this case doesn't seem like the seller did anything illegal in relation to the sale of the property even if they were fully aware of the events 15 years ago.

The lawyer can't go to the judge and say, but yer honour, this is creepy ;- )

Lawyer milking those poeple, that's also creepy.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> So there you go..if you find out that somebody died of criminal acts on your property..just paint the garage door a different colour..and maybe change the brass numbers to plastic..simple solution.


Time for Patrica Cornwell to introduce her new character "_Rhea Max_ Feng Shui Real Estate Coroner"?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Toronto.gal said:


> Yikes, I saw that, but can't say that I was surprised that even top hotels can be so filthy.


 .. the germs are the least of a traveller's worry (just bring enough disinfectants and avoid touching anything that you don't need to touch) when one can bring home very undesirable guests like "bed-bugs" :eek2:


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> Time for Patrica Cornwell to introduce her new character "_Rhea Max_ Feng Shui Real Estate Coroner"?


Lol - that's just bad.

I kind of like her books, but man - they are depressing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People die in their homes all the time.

Does it make a value difference how they die?

I would think not........but I know a lot of people disagree.

A friend of mine bought a home that had a very public murder committed in the basement. 

She got it for about 50% of the value.

She refinished the basement............but still said it was kind of creepy.

She sold the home a few years later.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I think if a very public murder happened in the house it should be disclosed by the real estate agent as well as any home that had some sort of stigma attached to it. In fact anything that affects the value of the property should be disclosed.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> People die in their homes all the time.
> 
> Does it make a value difference how they die?


I think psy..er.. psychologically it does make a difference.
if someone dies in their sleep (heart attack), that would be considered a natural occurrance..and no one..not even P.A; would have an issue if they were buying a resale..but if there was grisly murder or suicide..or a child murder, then some people may have some objection to living there.. 



> A friend of mine bought a home that had a very public murder committed in the basement.
> 
> She got it for about 50% of the value.
> 
> ...


For a profit, no doubt. I think once the house has been sold to a new owner and that owner has lived there for a few years, it's not the same as if the house was being sold from a fresh crime scene.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> In fact anything that affects the value of the property should be disclosed.


like a bunch of ******** or a grow op next door?:biggrin: 
or maybe somebody that likes to paint the woodwork purple?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

carverman said:


> like a bunch of ******** or a grow op next door?:biggrin:
> or maybe somebody that likes to paint the woodwork purple?


Or maybe a neighbour's loud orange car driving by occasionally, making all kinds of air compression sounds? :biggrin:


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

carverman said:


> Recently I saw the Marketplace expose on hotel room cleanliness..with all sorts of bacteria everywhere including C-difficile and MRSA..yowza!


That pseudo-documentary, pseudo-scientific coverage was terrible. Without a control location (like your own home), the arbitrary scoring system is meaningless. Low, medium, high amounts?

If you swabbed your own home (or mine for that matter), you would find just as much E. Coli. Anytime one encounters places used by other people, there is risk of contracting disease. With proper personal hygiene, washing hands, and a normal immune system, almost all people will be fine.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Besides, fighting off everyday bacteria is good training for the immune system.


----------



## thundershock (Nov 22, 2012)

I think all psychological reasons aside, it would depend if the house price would be affected if the murder was disclosed or not. I think this may be a good base for the couple to sue upon whether or not they care about the price, disturbance etc etc


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> Or maybe a neighbour's loud orange car driving by occasionally, making all kinds of air compression sounds? :biggrin:


I got a bunch of motorcycles with really LOUD mufflers disturbing me between 10pm and midnight most days and nights up to now.
Maybe I should sue?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

thundershock said:


> I think this may be a good base for the couple to sue upon whether or not they care about the price, disturbance etc etc


In order for this couple to be successful in court as "victims", they would have to prove:
a) negligence on the side of the seller or selling real estate broker
b) that some real estate law was broken
c) they are out $$$$ because of any physical damage done to them

I don't think that psychological "pain and suffering", or fear of what happened 15 years ago, is grounds enough for any kind of award by the court, IMO. If they do win their case, then that could set precedence in the courts for future cases..where new purchasers of homes can sue for any kind of psychological issue relating to past history.

The house is just a shell. People living inside it are the ones that make it a home. Even if the previous murder was not disclosed, because there was no law stating the seller had to, there is so far no proof that the couple has suffered any financial damage, because of what happened 15 years ago. 

By the same token, somebody could buy a 80 year old home (lots of those around), and learn later that someone died or was killed in that home 75 years ago..and the house has had other owners since then. What should the current owner do?..sue all the (still living) former owners of the house going back 75 years claiming that lack of disclosure is causing severe psychological damage to them?

That is what interior renovation and painting is for!


----------



## thundershock (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm not trying to argue who is right or wrong nor who should win money, but I think if the information of the murder which is relative (in this case) had been disclosed, it would affect the buyer's decision. You are right that they have no real grounds for a case but everyone has their thoughts towards a piece of property regardless of what happened to it and when. 15 years may seem like yesterday for one but an eternity for another.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^ The problem with having to disclose anything that affects the buyers decision or possible home value, is that unless its the law or regulation, it's somewhat arbitrary.

As said earlier, someone dieing naturally may or may not be different than being murdered. What about domestic violence, divorce, etc. I remember a neighbor (who was a total jerk) was really angry when they found out that one our properties would be a rental. They felt that decreases the value of his place. Should this be disclosed? What about if the people are of a minority? The same jerk actually felt that minorities in the area decreased the value, and wouldn't have bought if 'he knew there would be some many stupid (insert your racial term here)' in the area.


----------



## thundershock (Nov 22, 2012)

I don't think there is a point for law or regulations for disclosure for everything under the sun. It's not uncommon that sellers do not disclose information about the house not just for deaths. It's also common for example, that a leaky basement or roof damage is often hidden to sell a home and maybe at a higher price. Who's going to reinforce the disclosure? Who do you go after when these damages is finally exposed after X amount of years, especially when the previous owner(s) are long gone?

Really as a home buyer if you don't do your due diligence to examine the house and area, you reap what you sow. Things like neighborhoods and minorities as anything else do affect house prices, or else people wouldn't "classify" certain areas such as "unsafe" or "ghetto". You can imagine agents having a tough time trying to sell a decent house at a decent price in a very "bad" neighborhood. Either the house gets sold at a lower price or nobody wants to buy it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

thundershock said:


> I'm not trying to argue who is right or wrong nor who should win money, but I think if the information of the murder which is relative (in this case) had been disclosed, it would affect the buyer's decision.
> 
> You are right that they have no real grounds for a case but everyone has their thoughts towards a piece of property regardless of what happened to it and when. 15 years may seem like yesterday for one but an eternity for another.


I suppose so. If that was a newlywed couple's first home, and they wanted to turn it into a "lovenest" and have children there, the thoughts of someone being brutally murdered, would certainly detract from their vision of a happy home.

In that case, if I were the judge hearing the case, I would make a judgement that the couple could resell the home using the same Realtor, and any real estate costs to them would have to be compensated by the Realtor and owner..split 50% for not voluntarily disclosing.

Case closed.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> ^ The problem with having to disclose anything that affects the buyers decision or possible home value, is that unless its the law or regulation, it's somewhat arbitrary.
> 
> As said earlier, someone dieing naturally may or may not be different than being murdered.


But there is a difference in the circumstances of the death..one is by natural causes (supposedly peaceful) and the other is by violence and spilled blood in some cases. 



> What about domestic violence, divorce, etc.


Domestic violence (somebody getting beaten and survives to call the cops..is a domestic "disturbance"..cops/courts dealwith it. 
A divorce is pretty much a status quo these days, and should not have a bearing on the sale of the marital home, since in most cases it's a civil matter and the courts rule that the marital home should be sold and the net proceeds split equally..(as in my case). In my case, the real estate agent handling the sale for us, advised the buyers that it was a divorce sale and they got in a low ball bid, so in my case, the buyer had no reason to complain or sue anyone.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

thundershock said:


> I don't think there is a point for law or regulations for disclosure for everything under the sun.
> 
> You can imagine agents having a tough time trying to sell a decent house at a decent price in a very "bad" neighborhood. Either the house gets sold at a lower price or nobody wants to buy it.


One example of this would be a grow op. I believe that this has to be disclosed to the potential buyers after a full inspection for black mold (which is harmfull to anyone living there over a long period), and any renovation necessary to remove the mold.

In this case, the renovated former grow op property could be sold at market price..or even a loss, depending on the area it is located in.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We bought a house in the Unionville area from a small time developer. He built the identical home a couple of miles away.

After moving in, we discovered that the house was haunted. Doors slamming at night and the TV turned on to snow amd hiss. It only seemed to happen at night. We asked the developer (the house was only 2 years old) if anything had happened and he admitted that his father had died in the house (of natural causes).

I even removed the TV remote from the room, thinking it might be a random short. No luck. One day my Dad met the ghost in the basement and had a chat with him. After that, the midnight wanderings stopped. His description matched the dead father.

(Yes I know. I did not believe in ghosts either! Nor did my Dad.)

We also discovered that we were lucky that we were at #39 when we came to sell the place, because Chinese bought it. 

So far no lawsuits!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

kcowan said:


> We also discovered that we were lucky that we were at #39 when we came to sell the place, because Chinese bought it.  So far no lawsuits!


 ... wow! and now that was a smart/shrew move.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I was a kid, there was an article in the London Free Press about a reporter and cop showing up at a "haunted" house.

They both witnessed a girl sitting on a chair, lifted up and moved across the room.

They both left a little shaken. The police said it wasn't their jurisdiction and the reporter wrote the story.

The house was close to where I lived, and was abandoned for a long time afterwards.

In this case I am reminded of another incident.

Our next door neighbour had a back split home with the basement nicely finished. They were building new homes behind us, and one of the contractors had left a large hole in the ground which filled with rainwater.

The woman told me she didn't like all that water sitting there and she called the contractor. When she didn't get anywhere, she decided to dig out one side of the hole........and the water rushed into her home and destroyed the basement.

So what does she do................she goes on television and in the papers and describes how her house is ruined, the water table is really bad, the engineering is terrible and on and on.................and then she lists her house for sale.

LOL....................they had it up for a year and nobody even looked at it.

If these people lose this lawsuit............they not only don't get any compensation, but have toldl everyone the history of their house.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One of my friends lived on a corner, and was always having trouble with the neighbour behind him, facing a different way.

My friend had already put in a wood fence, within his own property, at his own expense because the neighbour refused to split the cost. He then decided to put in a swimming pool and deck around it, and then built an outside change room and bar on top of the deck.

The neighbour called the city and told them it obstructed their view of the intersection, a couple hundred feet away.

The city came and measured.............and the building was 2 inches too high.

They ordered my friend to tear it all down, which he did.

Shortly after, the neighbour put their house up for sale, and my friend got a bunch of different paint cans, and painted every wood board on the side facing the neighbour a different colour.

It looked like the circus was in town.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Had a house once...we'd switch the radio off...and it'd _stay_ off until we switched it on again......creepy, or what?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

It should be disclosed or the buyer can back out of a deal that has such an event.

http://www.bcrealestatelawyers.com/legalissues/stigmatized_properties_article.pdf


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> We asked the developer (the house was only 2 years old) if anything had happened and he admitted that his father had died in the house (of natural causes).
> 
> I even removed the TV remote from the room, thinking it might be a random short. No luck. One day my Dad met the ghost in the basement and had a chat with him. After that, the midnight wanderings stopped. His description matched the dead father.


Hopefully they had a "heart to heart" <carverman laughs> to find out why the ghost of the dead man was still around. Aren't
they supposed to go somewhere after they die? Maybe the "ghost" had some unfinished business to do? 


> (Yes I know. I did not believe in ghosts either! Nor did my Dad.)


Nice ghostly story but there has to be a logical explanation. :biggrin:

Are you saying that the TV was coming on by itself but no channel was selected? Then you hid the remote and the TV still came on because of the local on/off control? 
Could be paranormal activity. 



> We also discovered that we were lucky that we were at #39 when we came to sell the place, because Chinese bought it.


yes, you were lucky to sell it...



> he noticed that most Chinese home buyers routinely look for an eight in a street address, viewing it as an added value. Some try to have their home address changed to include an eight while many pay to get as many eights as they can in phone, fax and license numbers.
> 
> Alternatively, the Cantonese also deem nine (9, pronounced as kau) as a lucky number as it sounds like 'sufficient' (pronounced as gou) in their dialect tongue. However, the number nine is not also popular to the Chinese as it is an odd number.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

dogcom said:


> The first paragraph explains that it is wrong not to disclose this info in BC.
> 
> 
> http://www.bcrealestatelawyers.com/legalissues/stigmatized_properties_article.pdf


And, further down....



> Therefore, in common law jurisdictions like BC and Ontario, there are no
> legislation that defines or deals with stigmatized properties.





> Although Sellers are required to disclose all known material latent defects (on the Property
> Disclosure Statement), they are not required to disclose the existence of all possible stigmas that
> might be a concern with potential buyers. The doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) still
> very much applies in BC. *This means that buyers in BC have to make their own inquiries for
> possible stigmas.*


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Shortly after, the neighbour put their house up for sale, and my friend got a bunch of different paint cans, and painted every wood board on the side facing the neighbour a different colour.
> 
> It looked like the circus was in town.


If there was a bylaw inforcement (like we have in Ottawa), bylaw would be at your friends door with a ticket and maybe an order to repaint the fence. Some municipalities have strict rules about outside painting and even spitting!


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> And, further down....


You are fast to the draw Nemo2. I edited my original post, but I was to late.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

dogcom said:


> You are fast to the draw Nemo2. I edited my original post, but I was to late.


You know how it goes.......old fart, sitting at the 'puter, loves to click on links.......


----------

