Well, yeah. That was why I put that one off for 2 weeks. How can you make a legal argument about something that doesn't exist? What it boiled down to was whether or not the seller had a duty to disclose the actual murder on the property that caused the "haunting" (they did, per caselaw) and also with Cal.Civ.Code § 1102.6, there is a seller's disclosure form that must be completed by seller and agent that list things the seller must disclose, and "nuisance" is one of those, so I made an argument for that.
But here's a quote from my paper:
"The problem with the word “haunted” is that a ghost is something that cannot be proven by modern scientific methods. To ask whether or not a seller has the duty to disclose whether a property is haunted is not a legally satisfying question, as hauntings cannot be proven to exist. However, if a haunting can be classified as a nuisance, then under Cal.Civ.Code § 1102.6 – the REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT the seller is required to disclose if they know of any nuisances in the neighborhood."
And then about the murder:
"The California Court of Appeals has ruled in Reed v. King ((1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 261 [193 Cal.Rptr. 130]) that even though a multiple murder had occurred on the property ten years previous to the sale in question in the case, that the seller had a duty to disclose this fact, as the event of the murder has devalued the property. In our case of the Longs and the Browns, the murder has occurred fewer than two years before the sale of the property, and if we are to go by Reed, then the Longs had a duty to disclose the murder that had taken place on the residential portion of the property. In our case we have, as required elements of fraud as listed in #2: a. The Longs did suppress what would end up being a material fact. b. It has been established in Reed that the Longs had a duty to disclose the murder to the Browns. c. There is not sufficient evidence in what the firm has accumulated so far to show either way whether there was intent to defraud. d. The Browns claim they would not have purchased the property had they known about the death and the disturbances. e. The Browns sustained monetary damages in both the lagging sales at the toy store and the low sale price they would need to get in order to sell the property. In this instance, 4 of the 5 elements of fraud are clear. If the attorneys for the Browns can prove intent to defraud, then they will likely win a fraud case against the Longs."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 01:28 pm (UTC)But here's a quote from my paper:
"The problem with the word “haunted” is that a ghost is something that cannot be proven by modern scientific methods. To ask whether or not a seller has the duty to disclose whether a property is haunted is not a legally satisfying question, as hauntings cannot be proven to exist. However, if a haunting can be classified as a nuisance, then under Cal.Civ.Code § 1102.6 – the REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT the seller is required to disclose if they know of any nuisances in the neighborhood."
And then about the murder:
"The California Court of Appeals has ruled in Reed v. King ((1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 261 [193 Cal.Rptr. 130]) that even though a multiple murder had occurred on the property ten years previous to the sale in question in the case, that the seller had a duty to disclose this fact, as the event of the murder has devalued the property. In our case of the Longs and the Browns, the murder has occurred fewer than two years before the sale of the property, and if we are to go by Reed, then the Longs had a duty to disclose the murder that had taken place on the residential portion of the property. In our case we have, as required elements of fraud as listed in #2:
a. The Longs did suppress what would end up being a material fact.
b. It has been established in Reed that the Longs had a duty to disclose the murder to the Browns.
c. There is not sufficient evidence in what the firm has accumulated so far to show either way whether there was intent to defraud.
d. The Browns claim they would not have purchased the property had they known about the death and the disturbances.
e. The Browns sustained monetary damages in both the lagging sales at the toy store and the low sale price they would need to get in order to sell the property.
In this instance, 4 of the 5 elements of fraud are clear. If the attorneys for the Browns can prove intent to defraud, then they will likely win a fraud case against the Longs."