I. Brief of Stambovsky v. Ackley A. Facts In 1991, a homeowner, Helen Ackely, sold her Victorian mansion located in New York to a buyer who was unaware that the property was haunted. Ackely and other family members had reported stories of various ghosts and poltergeists hauting the house to various media sources, including Readers Digest. To these sources, she reported experiencing troubling events that she connected to the spirits that haunted the house. The buyer, Jeffery Stambovsky, purchased the house for $650,000, had paid a down payment of $32,500, and had signed a contract agreeing to purchase the house upon learning that the property was known around the town as being haunted. Ackely did not reveal to Stambovsky that the home was haunted …show more content…
This law, which is applicable in the state of New York, states that buyers are responsible for inspecting the properties that they are considering purchasing. The buyer did have the property inspected, but neither Stambovsky nor the inspectors could have determined that the house was haunted from an inspection since it was not a physical condition; therefore it was the duty of the seller to inform the buyer of the haunting since it diminished the value of the house. The fact that the house was widely known around the area as being haunted caused its value to depreciate which gave Ackley an unfair advantage over the buyer. The court also stated that since the seller informed the media of the hauntings, she owed that same information to Stambovsky since he was not from the area and could not have known about the property’s problem unless he read local newspapers or the particular issue of Readers Digest that covered the house. F. Policy Effects This decision was used as a precedent for other cases involving real estate law, specifically the Caveat Emptor law. The Caveat Emptor previously only covered physical complications with a property, but this case made it clear that any condition or stigma that diminished the value of a property could be used as grounds to terminate a contract if the buyer is not informed …show more content…
Riley (2008), the New York Supreme Court was deciding the legality of terminating a contractual agreement purchasing an apartment. The apartment, owned by Riley, was sold to Shillington with the promise that a large wall would be removed upon purchase. After paying the down payment, Shillington was informed by a broker that the wall could not be legally removed from the home as it was previously promised to be. Shillington took action to terminate the contact and requested his down payment back from Ackley due to negligent misrepresentation of the property. The court cited Stambovsky v. Ackley in its decision that a contractual agreement may be terminated if the seller of a property leaves out information that can lessen the value of the property being sold. In this case, the wall took up 200 extra square feet of space and its existence decreased the value of the property. The court applied this information but the case was dismissed and a settlement between the parties was reached. III. Scholarship on Stambovsky v. Ackley In the 1992 Syracuse Law Review, Robert L. Sweeny explicates some of the various terms that are necessary for real estate contracts to include. The author writes that it is essential in many real estate contracts for the property to either have no impediments or to provide insurance on these impediments in the form of an insurable title. The writer cites Stambovsky v. Ackley as a case that lacked this type of contact, which resulted in
Cruickshank, Garth & Romano is a new real estate appraisal and consulting firm. Richard Romano, a principle of the firm, had just completed a preliminary evaluation of a property for a new client, Watson & Musico. However, his client refuses to accept the appraisal and requested the value be increased by $4.5 million or else they would take their business elsewhere. Richard's decision on his client's estimate could have great impact on Cruickshank, Garth & Romano's success and its ability to develop new clients. The new firm could ill-afford to pass up on doing Watson & Musico's business but Richard also wanted to complete the appraisal according to his best estimate of the current market value of the property. This paper will analyze the ethical issues and alternatives for this case.
In the Kamloops v. Nielson case, a house being built did not pass the inspection by the city and construction was stopped, however the builder ignored the requests and continued to build the home without passing the necessary requirements for safety. The inspector also chose not to follow-up on the builder and allowed him to build the house without proper approval. The house was then sold to a couple that was unaware of the history of the home, and once problems arose with the foundation, they sued the municipality and the vendor. Similar to the Anns v. Merton case, this case questioned whether duty of care could be expanded to municipalities, and the presiding judge used the Anns test in determining duty of care.
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1. Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house.
The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 many New Yorkers and New Jerseyians were looking for a safe haven away from the turmoil of the aftermath. Many sought this refuge in the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania. Touting a short drive to New York City, many local home construction companies saw this as an opportunity to sell houses and turn a profit. Many of these companies were reputable and upstanding businesses that produced a quality product at a market ready price. However, some of these companies were not so upstanding and as a result many unsuspecting homeowners were scammed out of thousands of dollars and just as many ended up in foreclosure. It became very clear early on that something was not right with many of the new home transactions involving a company called Rain Tree Homes, and so the Y-Rent scam slowly unfolded.
The State of Missouri requires professionals to obtain a license before providing services to the public, in many careers. Misconceptions hold that issuance of licenses is just something that is needed in order to charge money for services. Licenses are issued however, because the public puts their trust in professionals who are more knowledgeable than they are. Many people today want to avoid the hassles and risks associated with the transfer of land, so they put their trust in licensed real estate professionals. The Missouri Broker Disclosure Form (MBDF) is a document used by the Missouri State Real Estate Commission that attempts to provide the public, knowledgeable information, about agency relationships (the fiduciary relationship between buyers/sellers and agents). It also holds real estate agents and brokers somewhat accountable to the public in representing them in their best interest; all real estate agents are required to present and explain this form to buyers and sellers. It seems in today’s society that greed, corruption, and self-interest has spread like an infectious disease and we live in a world where it is risky to put our trust in other people. The government tries to respond to that corruption by putting into place more regulations and laws to keep people honest. In summary, the Missouri Broker Disclosure Form is a document designed to help the public make an informed choice about the agency type, of the people that they are putting trust in, and the fiduciary commitments due to them.
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
The other owners in the neighborhood white , agreed to restrict colored people from buying houses in the neighborhood. Shelley had no knowledge of what the owners had done. He was not pleased with their ignorance.The circuit court declined to enforce the agreement on the basis that not all of the property owners had signed the covenant. Then Shelley appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which had no experience of a case like this before. The final decision was that any court may not constitutionally enforce a "restrictive covenant" which she prevents people of any particular race from buying
There was this rundown, old split-level on the edge of the town owned and inhabited by a young couple. This young couple did not have much money so they had to rent out the basement. The tenant that lived in the basement was a short, old man by the name of Louis. Louis lived there for about a year, but he NEVER came out of the basement. He NEVER answered the door during rent collection but just slid it through the mail slot. After a year, the couple was considering evicting Louis, mostly because they had a fear of Louis and his shady activities in the basement. Also, the couple was due for a baby in the upcoming year and they felt it was best for Louis to go. Louis did not respond well to the eviction however. So, when the couple was cleaning out the apartment, for another tenant, a skeleton fell out of the closet and landed on the floor with a loud CRASH! The couple ran out and called the police. After the whole thing with the police was sorted out, the couple moved out. More families would move in, but on the anniversary of the eviction, the Ghost of Louis would appear and haunt the inhabitants of the house, causing them to move out. The cycle continues today, and no one has seen Louis ever again, but rumor is he died after that eviction.
...r lived in the house experienced some type of paranormal activity. The information was concluded was doubtful in many ways. The evidence about the woman hanging from the tree behind the house would be doubtful. Anything could have happened behind the house on the tree. The person could have just be seeing things or having a flashback about something that happened previous years ago.
The story describes the house as being old and tended by an old man. The house is barely described other than it just being dark (paragraph 4). This adds to the creepy
It is the case against “Dr. Wolodzko” (defendant) by “Mrs. Stowers” (the plaintiff) in Wayne County court for the actions taken by the defendant and confinement of the plaintiff in the private mental hospital based on valid court order.
This unique story of a residence being haunted only until the ghost is asked to leave creates a different image from the typical ghost haunting until the inhabitants are driven crazy. The residents thought the ghost more of an annoyance than a threat, and when they asked him to leave; he did so without a fight. By performing no physical harm to any of the individuals and being mostly just foot steps in the dark, this was not a typical haunting.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Homestead Act." The Reader's Companion to American History. Dec. 1 1991: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.