OPINION|
If you're thinking of buying a house, would you want the seller to disclose if someone had been murdered there? Or taken their own life there?
Would you have wanted to know the dark history of the house where John Wayne Gacy killed 33 young men? Or the Springfield house on East Stanford Street where Craig Wood killed 10-year-old Hailey Owens in 2014?
Both those houses were destroyed, although Wood's house was on the market for a while but had no takers. The real estate agent who handled the listing voluntarily told potential buyers the house had been a “crime scene.”
I certainly would want to know.
In Missouri, it's buyer beware. Most states are similar when it comes to real estate laws. Such disclosure is not required. Neither do sellers have to say a word in Missouri if they believe evil spirits haunt the place.
In Missouri, the three main disclosures sellers must reveal to potential buyers are: if someone once made meth in the house; used the site for waste disposal or as a landfill for demolition debris; or if lead paint was applied to the house.
The lead paint is a federal requirement; it applies to houses and condos built before 1978.
A different category than a leaky roof
Homes where murders, suicides and hauntings have happened are examples — in real-estate parlance — of “psychologically impacted real property.”
Violent and/or deadly acts are not in the same category as leaking roofs or a sinking foundations.
Instead, it's buyer beware. Most states are similar. Some only require disclosure if the potential buyer specifically asks about murders, suicides and hauntings.
In writing this column, I was curious if anyone lived in the house on West Volunteer Way, north of Springfield, where Gypsy Rose Blanchard and Nicholas Godejohn killed Gypsy's mother in 2015.
Or had the house been demolished?
What I discovered is that a few years ago the house was remodeled, re-painted and assigned a new address.
The fact there is a new address is curious to me. It means that not only can the seller stay silent, but the federal government (I'm assuming postal authorities give the OK in address changes) can play a role in trying to cover up a house's crime-scene history.
Shouldn't a diligent buyer — in the face of a non-disclosing seller — at least be able to check the address?
In 1991, buyers wanted to know if anyone living in house had HIV or AIDS
I'm interested in this topic of disclosure because I'm helping a family member buy a house in Springfield.
In looking at state law, I have a pretty good idea of what happened in Missouri in 1991, the year the state's “Psychologically Impacted Real Property” statute was revamped.
The focus in 1991 was not on whether or not to disclose murders and suicides; it was on HIV and AIDS. Back then, apparently, buyers wanted to know if anyone with HIV or AIDS had been living in the house.
Missouri law states:
“The fact that a parcel of real property, or any building or structure thereon, may be a psychologically impacted real property, or may be in close proximity to a psychologically impacted real property shall not be a material or substantial fact that is required to be disclosed in a sale, exchange or other transfer of real estate.”
It defines “psychologically impacted real property”:
“Real property in which an occupant is, or was at any time, infected with human immunodeficiency virus or diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or with any other disease which has been determined by medical evidence to be highly unlikely to be transmitted through the occupancy of a dwelling place.
“No cause of action shall arise nor may any action be brought against any real estate agent or broker for the failure to disclose to a buyer or other transferee of real estate that the transferred real property was a psychologically impacted real property.”
I don't want to find out after purchase that my house was a murder scene
I'm sure real estate agents were bombarded by potential buyers wanting to know back then if anyone who had been living in the house had HIV or AIDS. I'm not surprised they wanted legal cover in 1991.
The second definition in that 1991 revision is: “Real property which was the site of a homicide or other felony, or of a suicide.” Disclosure not required.
Again: Should it be?
It's not the house, after all, that is responsible for violence and human depravity.
Houses don't kill people; people kill people (unless you count carbon monoxide poisoning).
It would matter to me. At the very least, in my view, I should be able to consider that fact in my purchase. It should be disclosed.
I can only imagine how I would feel if I'm out mowing my lawn six months after buying my house and a neighbor walks by and asks how can I possibly sleep in the same bedroom where those three children were murdered.
I would not be happy with my real estate agent, the seller's real estate agent or the real estate industry as a whole.
The few states that address disclosure of murder, suicide and alleged hauntings
This is from an Oct. 17, 2023 summary of state disclosure laws by Zillow. I've listed the handful of states that require some type of disclosure. Some require disclosure only when requested by the buyer.
Alaska: Seller must disclose if aware of a murder or suicide on property within last year.
California: Seller must disclose death (including natural death) on property within last three years.
Kentucky: No duty to disclose, but if there is a direct question about a haunting, a death, murder, a suicide or another stigmatizing factor, the agent or seller must answer honestly.
New Jersey: Disclosure not required but seller must provide whatever information they have when asked for it by a buyer.
Oklahoma: Seller must disclose if buyer asks and a suicide or homicide on property is important to decision.
South Dakota: Seller must disclose if — since they have owned the property — they are aware of a human death by homicide or suicide on the property.
This is Pokin Around column No. 178.
