I’m of the opinion that information should be irrelevant in the housing price and the sellers aren’t obligated.
This is so dumb. The home invader died at the hospital. Not in the house. So the seller was technically correct not to check the box.
Even if a home invader was killed in self defense and died in the house that shouldn’t be a big deal for the value of the house.
Its not like a serial killer lived there and dissolved hundreds of bodies in acid that he then dumped under the foundation.
He didn’t die in the house. He died in the hospital.
His injuries were sustained in the house but he was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.
“The coroner says he tried to leave but collapsed outside the home near the front door. He was declared dead in hospital.”
If i chain smoke in my house, then die from lung cancer in a hospital, would they be making the same claims?
In some US states, its obligatory to report any deaths in a seller’s house. But kind of silly really. People die all the time in houses. Heart attacks, seizures, dementia, we all gotta go sometime, and not everyone dies in a hospital or hospice care. Does it really make a difference to four walls and a floor if someone died violently or in their sleep? And this guy didnt even die IN the house. He was stabbed in the house but he died outside on the porch. Are ya worried about a haunted porch?
It will be interesting how a judge rules. I’ll guess there will be some compensation coming.
It’s Quebec, not Canada, right?
Why would that impact the cost of the property at all? Are there bullet holes that need patching or viscera that needs cleaning? No. It’s a normal house indistinguishable from ones in which violence did not occur.
But there might be ghosts or bad energy. You know how much sage they are gonna have to burn to clear it out? At least $500,000 CAD worth.
Are they claiming that the event has given the property a bad reputation that reduces its value by that amount? I suppose those are plausible grounds for a lawsuit. I can’t think of any other way a death on the property several years ago could cause damage to the new owners. Surely they’re not claiming that the house is haunted (and if that’s the issue, I can imagine the judge being extremely unamused).
I would think it could be hard to convince someone that the property had a bad reputation while at the same time claiming that you didn’t know about it. A “reputation” implies that it’s common knowledge, or at the very least, that it’s easy to find out about. Which means that if you didn’t know about it, you didn’t do your due diligence.
My suspicion is that they didn’t talk to the neighbours until after they bought the house. So, yeah, lack of due diligence.
That’s probably sufficient for the haunting ti be off the property.
So long as the house wasn’t built on an ancient aboriginal burial site, I might be able to look the other way.
Just don’t dig a pool.
