Brief Reed v. King - Issue In the sale of a house must the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 9/22/09 Seat #59 REED v. KING Facts: Dorris Reed (the defendant) purchased a home from Robert King (the plaintiff). The  home, without the knowledge of Reed or her real-estate agent, was the site of a multiple murder  ten year earlier. Reed learned of this murder from a neighbor after the sale. King knew about  the murder, and knew that it materially affected the market value of the house when they listed it  for sale. Reed paid $76,000 for the house, and it was only worth $65,000 due to its past. Reed  sues for rescission and damages.  History: The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, King. 
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Issue: In the sale of a house, must the seller disclose it was the site of a multiple murder? Decision: Yes. The trial court’s decision was reversed. Reasons: The seller of property has a duty to disclose facts that materially affect the value or desirability of the property which are known only by him, and also know that if these facts aren’t within the grasp of the buyer, the seller must disclose these facts to the buyer. The murders have a material effect on the market value of the house, thus it was the sellers duty to inform the buyer of said murders....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/17/2011 for the course BLAW 300 taught by Professor King during the Spring '11 term at University of Phoenix.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online