Would you buy a house that a suicide had ocurred in?

[poppy]

If they recognize that it's not a rational response then surely the owner/seller has no moral obligation to disclose the event. This is what some of us are questioning. Why a seller should have a moral responsibility to disclose something like this.

If it's irrational *but common* for potential buyers to have that response, that could impact house value.

[Murphy101]

It is a moral issue because it affects some -a significant number - people's decision on whether or not they would buy the house and how comfortable they might feel living there. It is hiding something about the house that many people consider important.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Well so what. It doesn't affect the structure or the neighborhood, it's not a moral issue in the sale of the house.

 

The nutty neighbor would be more annoying and many more people according to this thread would be bothered by that, but there's not a moral imperative to disclose that the neighbor is a nosy jerk. It's not hiding anything about the house. Whatever people did in the house before has nothing to do with the house itself.

[marbel]

If they recognize that it's not a rational response then surely the owner/seller has no moral obligation to disclose the event. This is what some of us are questioning. Why a seller should have a moral responsibility to disclose something like this. 

 

I guess I don't see that people talking about morals need to have a rational basis for their opinions.  I see those comments as the equivalent of saying "if I had a house like that, I'd feel morally obligated to tell people because it bothers me."   It's not a legal obligation.  They just think it's the right thing to do.   

 

If my husband died, I would feel a moral obligation to maintain contact with his parents.  I don't particularly like them, and my kids are old enough to maintain their own relationships with their grandparents if they want to, but still it seems like the right thing to do.  I don't have a rational explanation for that feeling though.  If I liked them more, it would be easy to explain.   :-)  But then I wouldn't have to explain it, because I wouldn't be maintaining contact out of a feeling of obligation, but simply because I liked them.

 

Not a perfect example, I'm sure.  I guess this is just something that makes sense to me.

 

 

 

 

[sassenach]

If they recognize that it's not a rational response then surely the owner/seller has no moral obligation to disclose the event. This is what some of us are questioning. Why a seller should have a moral responsibility to disclose something like this.

Disclosures exist to inform potential buyers of anything that would effect the value or resale of the home. This does. So the immoral part (though I don't know that I would go so far as applying that word to others, but I do think it would factor into my own decision) would be the concealing of something that is clearly effecting the value and resale of this home. So it's not that the word "moral" is connected to the suicide aspect, it's connected to the value/resale aspect. Just like foundation or drainage problems. You may not be able to see them, but the owner is obligated to disclose, legally, and for many of us, morally.

 

That last sentence was awful, but I'm on my phone and too lazy to fix it.

[poppy]

I just want to be clear that I think this conversation has spun off a bit and it 's not (for me at least) about the specific  incident the OP talked about.

It's more of a "hypothetically what's the right thing to do if there is a violent  death" than "Is the OP being moral or immoral".  For me at least.

 

It's an interesting discussion to me, but feels very insignificant vs the terrible tragedy of the young person's suicide. 

[Murphy101]

I just want to be clear that I think this conversation has spun off a bit and it 's not (for me at least) about the specific incident the OP talked about.

It's more of a "hypothetically what's the right thing to do if there is a violent death" than "Is the OP being moral or immoral". For me at least.

 

It's an interesting discussion to me, but feels very insignificant vs the terrible tragedy of the young person's suicide.

Well obviously.

 

No one is saying someone commiting suicide is on par with house selling frustrations.

 

It's horrible it happened, but life goes on. A house still needs to be sold.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not disclosing something that isn't legally required is not the same thing as hiding the information.

[MysteryJen]

When we sold our house, one of the offers asked if anyone had died there. They were a Vietnamese family. So I think those things are of a general human interest.

Marbel had it spot on for me: I would want to know, so I would disclose. I understand it is not legally required, but we have been burned by incomplete disclosures and I don't want to do that to anyone else.

[ondreeuh]

OK just to clear up something - the reason that death is not required to be disclosed in this state (as in many others) is because it could unfairly prejudice people because it is not material to the actual house. Death and certain other facts (listed below) are acknowledged to be of concern to many buyers, but are not required to be disclosed. Other things (flooding, termites, leaky roof, drug lab, etc.) are required to be disclosed because they are material to the actual house. Anyone buying a house in Oregon should do their own due diligence to check for things that might not be disclosed.

 

"In Oregon, certain conditions on or near real property that may be of concern to buyers are considered not to be "material" by state law. Oregon Revised Statute 93.275. Ordinarily, "material facts" must be disclosed by the seller or the seller's agent. However, because state law declares certain facts to be not material, sellers are not held responsible for disclosing them as might otherwise be the case.

 

Facts that would be subject to disclosure but for the statute include the fact that the property was the site of a death, crime, political activity, religious activity, or any other act or occurrence that does not adversely affect the physical condition of, or title to, real property, including that a convicted sex offender resides in the area. Although the seller is not required to disclose such facts, they may elect to- for instance disclosing a pedophile living next door to buyers with small children. Under Oregon law, neither the seller nor their agent is allowed to disclose that an owner or occupant of the real property has or had human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome."

 

Like most people, I would feel morally obligated to disclose if I knew of any sex offenders in the area, because that could affect the family if not the home. However, while I am not aware of any sex offenders in the area, it's not my responsibility to pull up police reports, check registries, and interview neighbors so that I could disclose anything I found. That is up to potential buyers. It's also not my responsibility to disclose the adjoining neighbor who will pressure them to cut the hedge down to 6 ft tall because she wants more sunlight on her garden. Or that traffic is really bad at rush hour. Or that there's a section 8 complex a block away. Or that one time we had rats in a woodpile.

 

My original question was just about the suicide. In the case of a suicide, there is nothing in my mind that would affect the house or anyone living in it. The poor kid made a tragically impulsive decision but it is not anywhere on the same "need to know" level as a superfund site, leaky roof, or drug den.

 

We have another offer coming in on that house, so maybe there will be a bidding war and we will be surprised. We told our realtor last night that we would accept the negotiated offer, but now we're on hold.

[Spryte]

Ondreeuh, I hope that bidding war happens! And I hope it's sells easily and painlessly.

[gardenmom5]

 

 

It may be that I'm not particularly sensitive to superstition and/or kind of feel that if you are superstitious, then shouldn't your sixth sense kick in and tell you "this house is not for you" (or shouldn't you bring the priest or fortuneteller with you to the inspection if it's that important to you)?  I've gotten vibes before, sure. But I chalk it up to my vibes -- the other entity isn't obligated if there really is no actual harm to befall me, and it's just my own 'willies' getting in the way. Or shouldn't you seek out the neighbors if you want information about the neighborhood as opposed to them coming up to you unsolicited? Seems like an unfair burden on the seller that has nothing to do with the wiring or pipes or that the water heater is about to go.  

 

people get their own vibes - they shouldn't need anyone to tell them something for whether they should have "vibes" or not.  if they don't feel anything, and then they are told something bad happened, then they get "vibes" - are those really vibes?  or a self-fulfilling bad feeling since they only felt it after they were told there was something to feel?

 

 

   After I put my deposit in, I learned this house -- which was on a lake -- was downstream from a Superfund site.  The local environmental board said "it's not a problem!" (But they did forbid swimming or fishing in that lake.... hmmmm).

 

that is something that can affect the physical safety of the home- what the local environmental board says notwithstanding.  there's a history of overseeing agencies saying something is safe - and people getting sick.

not comparable at all.

[Lady Florida.]

Marbel had it spot on for me: I would want to know, so I would disclose.

 

Okay, so who gets to decide? You would want to know so you would disclose. I don't think it matters and it wouldn't affect my buying decisions so I wouldn't think of disclosing if it wasn't required. (It's not that I don't want to know, just that I consider it irrelevant. Tell me or don't; it won't make a difference in whether or not I choose the house.) Because of how I feel it wouldn't occur to me to disclose. Because of how you feel you would think it best to disclose. Neither of us would be wrong, and that's why I think it's better to look to state laws instead of one of us deciding what's the right thing to do.

 

OK just to clear up something - the reason that death is not required to be disclosed in this state (as in many others) is because it could unfairly prejudice people because it is not material to the actual house. Death and certain other facts (listed below) are acknowledged to be of concern to many buyers, but are not required to be disclosed. Other things (flooding, termites, leaky roof, drug lab, etc.) are required to be disclosed because they are material to the actual house. Anyone buying a house in Oregon should do their own due diligence to check for things that might not be disclosed.

 

"In Oregon, certain conditions on or near real property that may be of concern to buyers are considered not to be "material" by state law. Oregon Revised Statute 93.275. Ordinarily, "material facts" must be disclosed by the seller or the seller's agent. However, because state law declares certain facts to be not material, sellers are not held responsible for disclosing them as might otherwise be the case.

 

Exactly. I really would like to know if there were ever termites, if the foundation is solid, if the house is going to need a new roof, if there are leaks anywhere, etc. What went on in the house before has no bearing on the important things.

 

 

Like most people, I would feel morally obligated to disclose if I knew of any sex offenders in the area, because that could affect the family if not the home. However, while I am not aware of any sex offenders in the area, it's not my responsibility to pull up police reports, check registries, and interview neighbors so that I could disclose anything I found. That is up to potential buyers. It's also not my responsibility to disclose the adjoining neighbor who will pressure them to cut the hedge down to 6 ft tall because she wants more sunlight on her garden. Or that traffic is really bad at rush hour. Or that there's a section 8 complex a block away. Or that one time we had rats in a woodpile.

 

I agree, and this is the one area where I would disclose whether or not it's required. If I knew of a convicted sex offender nearby I would absolutely tell anyone (and their age wouldn't matter because older people might be grandparents whose grandchildren spend time with them). Like you, I wouldn't go searching - that's the buyer's responsibility - but if I knew I'd definitely speak up.

 

My original question was just about the suicide. In the case of a suicide, there is nothing in my mind that would affect the house or anyone living in it. The poor kid made a tragically impulsive decision but it is not anywhere on the same "need to know" level as a superfund site, leaky roof, or drug den.

 

Like many threads, this one evolved. :)

I agree with you on all of the above.

 

We have another offer coming in on that house, so maybe there will be a bidding war and we will be surprised. We told our realtor last night that we would accept the negotiated offer, but now we're on hold.

 

Ooh, here's hoping you end up with a bidding war. 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Lady Florida.

[Bluegoat]

I think the idea that there is an obligation to disclose is weird and unweildy.  For how long?  It's so irrational that no length of time makes sense.  So forever, there needs to be a list of dead people ans tragedies attached to each property?

 

I mean, in the case of the OP, she is still having trouble despite being past the time limit by law.

[Slojo]

I once turned a house down (asked for a refund deposit) due something that many others would not find questionable.  After I put my deposit in, I learned this house -- which was on a lake -- was downstream from a Superfund site.  The local environmental board said "it's not a problem!" (But they did forbid swimming or fishing in that lake.... hmmmm).

 

I thought to myself, whether or not their are lingering health questions, I might never be able to sell this house. Despite it being a really lovely Foresquare, on a lake, in a great neighborhood...

 

I don't think gunshot death falls into exactly the same category, but I don't think it is pure superstition to be inclined to avoid it.

I also turned a house down under similar circumstances -- and, yes, everyone should think about resale value when purchasing a home. I am questioning the "morality" question posed in this thread. The house I currently live in was built in 1949 - who knows what's happened in this house in all those years? And while I can see the initial sense that a house might be "tainted" immediately following a suicide death, 10 or 20 years down the line, after most people who would have been around are long gone, would an otherwise perfectly fine house still be "tainted?" That would be strange, and it would be strange to expect the current owner 10 or 20 years later to include that information in a potential sale (and possibly even to have knowledge of that information, as the house could have easily changed hands several times in that time). 

 

It may or may not be superstition to avoid the house, and the buyer should ask questions like "this house seems to be selling lower than other houses in the area, why is that..." But the seller isn't obligated to preemptively disclose because, unlike the environmental concern, the suicide will not affect your health. The violent death was not the result of crime in the area, so it's not an issue that such crime could be visited upon the house again. (Besides - buyers can and should look up crime stats in the area, so that's already covered. Environmental stuff, while harder to find, is also up to the buyer to seek out, with each of us having our varying levels of tolerance for crime and environmental risks). It's fine for you not to want to be associated with a violent death, but it's a different animal altogether to suggest that suicide MUST be disclosed in the sale of a house, or else there is a morality issue with the seller. 

 

If it's irrational *but common* for potential buyers to have that response, that could impact house value.

Yeah, but, that's a slippery slope. It is "irrational but common" for potential buyers to not want to buy a house from an African American family. As a black woman, that doesn't work for me. It is not an irrationality that I can support, legally or morally. Yet study after study suggests that previous occupancy by an African American family impacts house value, regardless of the state of the house. Some black families go through great lengths to hide signs that an ethnic family lives/lived here. That example is clearly a "derailment" from the original thread, but because that dynamic exists in the world, it is precisely the reason that I personally feel like I do not want a world in which things that are immaterial to the house itself are "fair game" for automatic disclosure, or that there is some unique moral obligation for the seller to disclose. Moral sensibility can work both ways -- and that example suggests that the "shades of gray" are cloudy indeed. Seller is not morally obligated for anything that would not cause undue harm to the buyer or is not material to the house itself. We've got to be able to operate in a world that errs of that side of things. Sure, an individual seller CAN disclose, but I'd stop short of "moral obligation." 

 

I guess I don't see that people talking about morals need to have a rational basis for their opinions.  I see those comments as the equivalent of saying "if I had a house like that, I'd feel morally obligated to tell people because it bothers me."   It's not a legal obligation.  They just think it's the right thing to do.   

 

If my husband died, I would feel a moral obligation to maintain contact with his parents.  I don't particularly like them, and my kids are old enough to maintain their own relationships with their grandparents if they want to, but still it seems like the right thing to do.  I don't have a rational explanation for that feeling though.  If I liked them more, it would be easy to explain.   :-)  But then I wouldn't have to explain it, because I wouldn't be maintaining contact out of a feeling of obligation, but simply because I liked them.

 

Not a perfect example, I'm sure.  I guess this is just something that makes sense to me.

Absolutely! I have a number of moral obligations that are personal to me, including the one you posed here. Great if you think the disclosure is the right thing to do. But perfectly moral beings might chose otherwise. I actually don't know what I'd do - I think I'm mostly stuck on framing it as a moral obligation. It wasn't originally framed as an individual thing, that each person could take up or not take up as they saw it. It was framed as a much more universal, "of course one should disclose" moral obligation. So, I guess I'm saying that, in that situation, if I had bought the house without knowing that information, I'd think something like this: "Wow! I didn't know someone committed suicide in this house! That feels heavy, and changes how I think about the house... But, rationally speaking there was no reason for that to have been disclosed. It's really sad all around, and now that I have had this experience, I might be inclined to ask next time we are in the market for a house..." Or, I'd realize, no, I still like the house. Then, I'd focus my energies on making it a happy home, and I, personally, would probably be able to move past it and focus on happy memories. The only situation in which I could see this not being the case is a house in which a sadistic crime occurred (the kind that would make regional or national news), but usually, it is my understanding that most of those houses are torn down so as not to become a site of morbid fascination. Houses that are in a violent, crime-ridden area (and there but by the grace of God go I) are really something I have the good fortune to be able to afford to avoid, and, again, that was not the scenario presented. So all of my moral obligations would be fulfilled. 

 

Disclosures exist to inform potential buyers of anything that would effect the value or resale of the home. This does. So the immoral part (though I don't know that I would go so far as applying that word to others, but I do think it would factor into my own decision) would be the concealing of something that is clearly effecting the value and resale of this home. So it's not that the word "moral" is connected to the suicide aspect, it's connected to the value/resale aspect. Just like foundation or drainage problems. You may not be able to see them, but the owner is obligated to disclose, legally, and for many of us, morally.

 

That last sentence was awful, but I'm on my phone and too lazy to fix it.

I appreciate you not applying the "immoral" to others. That was the sticking point. Not that others wouldn't want to live in such a house. I'm fine with that. Probably if there were two equally compelling houses, and one had a recent suicide and the other didn't, maybe I'd chose the other. But I also wouldn't feel "wronged" if it wasn't disclosed, and I didn't do my research on the history of the home. I think it comes down to, "YOU if you were the owner" are morally obligated to disclose, but all owners are not. How could "all owners being morally obligated" possibly be in this case? For me, under my moral framework, I stop at harm (including a house connected to criminal activity because those criminal elements may or may not still come looking for the former occupants -- but that is covered under crime statistics) and physical condition of the house. I would even go so far as to say because I am a member of a group that HAS been historically discriminated against as it relates to housing policy and the potential for resale in the housing market, I feel very strongly obligated to be really clear about what is material to the house and what is not. I'm not "mad at someone" for factoring in something else (well, I'm a bit peeved at out and out racists) - but I'm not morally obligated to preemptively disclose the "what else" particularly when it gets into "social judgments" and "personal sensibilities." Can you see where my moral framework comes into play here? It's not so cut-and-dried to me.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Slojo

[FaithManor]

I think the idea that there is an obligation to disclose is weird and unweildy.  For how long?  It's so irrational that no length of time makes sense.  So forever, there needs to be a list of dead people ans tragedies attached to each property?

 

I mean, in the case of the OP, she is still having trouble despite being past the time limit by law.

I was thinking the same thing. 

 

I think that if this is a deal breaker type thing for the buyers, then BEFORE committing to a house, it is incumbent upon them to check public records, go to the local library and look up the obituaries for the neighborhood, check with local funeral homes, etc. as far back as puts them at ease to find out if anyone died there of a violent act, and check the registry for convicted deviants. The seller can never know what will and will not be an issue for future owners, so he or she should only disclose what the state says is appropriate or anything that is material to the house such as "the big oak in the front lost a large limb last year and has many more that are cracked so at some point in the next few years it may have to come down" and leave it at that. There is definitely some responsibility on the part of the buyer to determine if the house is good for his or her family, and that includes doing the research on anything that would give them bad vibes or sadness.

[El...]

I think the idea that there is an obligation to disclose is weird and unweildy.  For how long?  It's so irrational that no length of time makes sense.  So forever, there needs to be a list of dead people ans tragedies attached to each property?

 

I mean, in the case of the OP, she is still having trouble despite being past the time limit by law.

But see, that kind of record-keeping would make things SO much easier for Sam and Dean! 

 

(I know, horribly sad for the family in this actual situation... never mind me.)

 

[Bluegoat]

But see, that kind of record-keeping would make things SO much easier for Sam and Dean! 

 

(I know, horribly sad for the family in this actual situation... never mind me.)

 

 

That seems like a very good reason not to do it!

[J-rap]

Getting back to the OP:  I don't think I would buy a home if I learned a violent death had recently occurred in it.  I'm not superstitious, but it would still feel very sad and unsettling to me, especially since it had happened so recently.  Also, if it happened recently then I assume it would probably be brought up in a conversation at some point with neighbors.  Mostly of the likelihood of it being brought up in neighborly conversation and the resulting shock that this news could potentially cause the new owners, I think if I were trying to sell the home I'd probably bring it up.

 

On the other hand, if it happened years ago, I think it probably wouldn't need to be brought up, because chances are it would never come up in the course of a conversation with neighbors and a lot of life has been lived in the home since it took place.  If I found out after I had already been living in a home that 50 years earlier a suicide had taken place in the home, it would still be a little unsettling, but not nearly the same as if it had just happened 6 months ago and was a person that people in the neighborhood actually knew.

 

Of course somewhere in there is the blurry middle area -- it happened 15 years ago and some neighbors knew him and remembered him.  

[OnTheBrink]

No, I wouldn't disclose it--my state doesn't require that as part of the disclosure. Besides, my house is 85 years old. I'm sure someone had to have died here. For those concerned with the violence of suicide, do other violent acts that didn't result in death need to be disclosed? 

 

Am I the only person who becomes Inspector Gadget when considering a house? I research the house and the sellers. And, by that, I mean I find out who they are via online (free) public records and FB. If they were drug dealers or something, I don't want the house because of who might still come around. I've BTDT in my own house. For the first 6 years I lived here, people were looking for a previous tenant, banging on my door all hours of the night and day--collectors, repo men, private detectives. A former neighbor was a druggie and some sketchy people came here looking for her, too, when she up and disappeared. If the owner has died and it's an estate sale, that gives me an insight that there may be more than one person involved in accepting an offer, and the process could take a little longer if multiple heirs have to be consulted. And, with an estate sale, they may have some furnishings they'd be willing to include in the sale. If someone committed suicide, I don't think I'd care (as it relates to the sale of the house) but I wouldn't want to know the details because I'd ruminate on that and it would upset me on a personal level (not on a "is the house itself affected" level).

 

People should ask questions if they're concerned, do a google search, search online newspapers to see if anything that would bother them happened in the house. I don't think a real estate attorney needs to be consulted, unless it's to shut the nosey neighbor up. Disclose what's required by law if you're a seller, and do your homework if you're a buyer. If a house skeeves you out, walk away. Caveat emptor. 

 

Having said all that, I looked at a condo where the owner had passed. The thing that tipped me off was that there were name tags on all the furniture, which was odd. I asked about it and was told of the lady's passing. The fact all her belongings were still there, with food in the fridge and pantry, and a basket of folded towels on the dryer, sort of creeped me a bit, but because if felt like we were somehow "vulturing" on this lady's home. Her decor was a bit odd--sort of medieval themed in a relatively small space, and that did add to the creepiness. However, she had a great kitchen and the unit was on a lake, so had I really wanted it, I'd have put in an offer (and painted the burgundy red walls and made sure the weird iron decor was gone!).

[73349]

I'm surprised how many people would consider a suicide a deal-breaker. I wouldn't be deterred by it, if the house was otherwise what I wanted.

 

The US apparently has over 100 suicides a day, many of them presumably at home, for reasons that have nothing to do with the property. It's the tenth-leading cause of death overall, and second for ages 10-34. (Unintentional injury is 4th overall--first for ages 1-44--with three times as many deaths. I'm sure many of those occur in houses also.)

 

Criminal activity or environmental concerns might deter me, in that they may affect our lives in the neighborhood.

[mellifera33]

Hmm...my take-home lesson, as someone who will be looking for a new house in a year or so, is that I should take note of any address with an unfortunate death, wait for the house to come on the market, and make a lowball offer that will probably be accepted because nobody wants to live there. 

[ondreeuh]

We have now accepted offers on BOTH houses, and hope that they both close next month. It's hard to tell if the suicide affected the overall value of the one house. If they back out because of the suicide, they will lose their earnest money - but if they name a reason on the inspection report, they won't lose it. So we will find out in 2 weeks or so if they are accepting the inspection and continuing forward.

[marbel]

I hope it all goes well with your house  sales! 

[Lady Florida.]

We have now accepted offers on BOTH houses, and hope that they both close next month. It's hard to tell if the suicide affected the overall value of the one house. If they back out because of the suicide, they will lose their earnest money - but if they name a reason on the inspection report, they won't lose it. So we will find out in 2 weeks or so if they are accepting the inspection and continuing forward.

 

I hope both offers go through for you. Fingers crossed (says the woman who doesn't believe in superstition  :lol: )

[Tsuga]

Disclosures exist to inform potential buyers of anything that would effect the value or resale of the home. This does. So the immoral part (though I don't know that I would go so far as applying that word to others, but I do think it would factor into my own decision) would be the concealing of something that is clearly effecting the value and resale of this home. So it's not that the word "moral" is connected to the suicide aspect, it's connected to the value/resale aspect. Just like foundation or drainage problems. You may not be able to see them, but the owner is obligated to disclose, legally, and for many of us, morally.

 

That last sentence was awful, but I'm on my phone and too lazy to fix it.

 

Well having African Americans in the neighborhood affects the value of the home. If more than 10% of the homeowners are African American--doesn't matter what the prices are or how expensive it is--that affects the resale value of the home. It is a disgusting truth of racism in our country.

 

So... does it have to be disclosed that a neighborhood is interracial? (My neighborhood actually IS fairly diverse for my state.)

 

So perhaps the question is, if something affects the resale value of the home because some people are prejudiced or superstitious, does it still have to be disclosed, just as something would have to be if it affects the value for everyone of sound judgment?

 

A superfund site is different. It's a superfund site! I mean... that is a meaningful, quantifiable designation. Egads.