Originally Posted By: B Ray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Is this a test that most inspectors can do, or is this something to stay away from. Since any HI would have NO clue before a inspection , this could be an additional charge if it’s feasable. http://www.kthv.com/extras/extras.aspx?storyid=8770
Originally Posted By: dvalley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The law is pretty screwed up if you ask me. It states?
No criminal, civil, or administrative action may be brought against a transferor or lessor of real property or a licensee for failing to disclose that the property being transferred or leased is or has been:
1) The site of a natural death, suicide or homicide or any other crime classified as a felony.
2) Owned or occupied by a person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus or diagnosed as having acquired immune deficiency syndrome or any other disease that is not known to be transmitted through common occupancy of real estate.
3) Located in the vicinity of a sex offender.
Failing to disclose any fact or suspicion shall not be grounds for termination or rescission of any transaction in which real property has been or will be transferred or leased."
The law needs to change, requiring that all discovered meth labs must absolutely be disclosed to all potential buyers. Now, the house will never sell. They might as well bulldoze the property. No one in their right mind is going to purchase a house that could pose a threat to their health.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
dvalley wrote:
These meth tests shouldn?t be necessary if the RE agent did their job correctly and disclosed to the buyers about the past activities of the home. This should be stated on the disclosure.
ONLY IF this was known. And, if known, only if it has a material effect on the value of the house, and, like many of us, I doubt they would be aware of this. Without being aware of this, I would not have considered a 'former drug house' to materially effect the value of the house. Having someone killed or murdered there, yes. But drugs "materially affecting the value", get real, they (drugs) are all over.
Might as well try to list the houses known to NOT have had drugs in them.
How many places could this be happening and no one knows about it?
Originally Posted By: dbush This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Dave, Like Jerry said, that could be anywhere. Especially some vacant homes. Since we are in one of the meth capitals of the United States here, there are many homes that have had meth made in them and the realtor would have no way of knowing. How would you recommend they find out, not all meth labs are busted, nor are they all operated for long periods, most are not.
Originally Posted By: B Ray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Since they can do a test , this might be a test that can be done by any HI and be able to make alittle extra money, but We don’t have a clue what was done before we are to inspect the house. I bet it would ease the mind of several clients if they knew their house was safe.
Originally Posted By: dvalley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ok, I explained the situation on known meth labs.
Now, there are homes out there that go up For Sale and the sellers know that this particular house was used as a lab. In this situation, more than two-thirds of all states require that home sellers present home buyers with a property disclosure form listing known legal hindrances, physical defects and even paranormal activity relating to the property. Failure to do so could result in civil and criminal action, and in some cases even recision of the sale.
You are both correct. There are houses out there that have been used a cooking labs that nobody really knows anything about it. When the lab is no longer there and the house does go up for sale, the buyers are not going to be very happy when everyone starts getting sick. So now there?s a problem. I don?t have that sort of problem in my area, but if it is becoming a problem in your area, then buy some test swabs. I don?t know what sort of legal situation you?ll be getting into though. Check with your attorney.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
dbowers wrote:
In my state its required to disclose if a house or other residential building has been used as a meth lab
If it's known to have been (how else could it be disclosed? If a seller has been cooking up some meth. and now they are moving, you think they are going to say "Hey, world, I've been cooking meth. in my house." I don't think so.). That is a very big difference - known.
Originally Posted By: psabados This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry
In typical meth lab-house, the occupant or resident cook is usually a renter. These meth labs usually move on a frequent basis. You know, find a house for rent, drop a couple of months payments furnish phoney information for a reference check. Its a slam bam, cook em while I can and get the hell out of Dodge before the marshall catch's up with me.
So, seller in most of these cases is not the occupant. Some guy or corporation trying to make a living buying properties and getting a rent check on a regular basis. The typical owner may or may not have a clue as to whats going on there. He may have an idea or heard some scuttle butt. If a large rental corp. own's the property and they have the same feelings it would be in their best interest to dump the property, before the feds and the epa show up, knock the place down and require a clean-up.
So the Im the cooker/owner theory and I will not disclose because I am incriminating myself is very weak. BTW these labs are not just in the ghetto areas, the nicer upscale neighborhoods are becoming the preferred locations. Seems they have less security problems and present a lower profile.