Disclosure on real estate damage
Got an interesting one here. Let me give you a time line:
2001: House on block hit by 80 foot tall Oak tree. The tree broke the main beam of the house/roof and it was condemed until fixed. A lot of damage.
2004: House sold to new neighbors. Damage disclosed.
2009: Neighbors selling house, yet are NOT including damage from 2001 on disclosure statement.
To me this is entirely unethical. Is it also illegal? Their slimey realtor is saying you don't have to disclose things from previous owners. I don't buy it.
I am looking at a new neighbor who will move in and then find out from neighbors that their house was smashed by a tree. Whether the repairs were well done or not (mostly not), how would you like that to be you? I think this is awful. Though I want the house sold, I think it should be on the up and up.
It's not like a car that's a total
Your first sentence said "condemmed until repaired" That would mean to me that it was unsafe to live in until someone repaired it properly and it met the city/state, etc. inspectors approval for repairs. Thousands of people live in houses that have been in the same situation from storms, floods, tornadoes, etc. and have perfectly sound homes. If your chair leg breaks and the chair is unsafe to sit in, a guy in a workshop can make it "good as new" again in short order without having to tell the guy that buys it someday in the future at the garage sale that "once upon a time" that chair was condemmed as unsafe. Not trying to be a smart "you know what" but if the work was done right the house might be better now than it was before the tree fell with better framing, materials, etc. Just my 2 cents worth. :)