(August 9, 2017 at 10:28 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 9:39 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: However, the courts have ruled that if a seller is aware that the property has a reputation for being haunted, that is a fact germane to the buyer's decision that must be disclosed. The ruling isn't that ghosts are real, just that if the seller knows that a property has that reputation, it's both part of their disclosure responsibility and something that a building inspection won't turn up.

There was a relevant case in 1990 known as the 'Ghostbuster Case'. There was evidence that the seller was the source of the rumors that the house was haunted, so he was in a pickle when it came to claiming he didn't know it was haunted.

Read my response to CD about that case. The court did not rule non-disclosure as fraudulent. But the buyer was allowed to get his down payment back and get out of the contract. Sellers should be honest about what they know, but there are no laws on the books directing them to reveal whether or not their house is indeed haunted.

The brief itself from that case. Here's just a snippet from the first page of that briefing: 

Quote:While I agree with Supreme Court that the real estate broker, as agent for the seller, is under no duty to disclose to a potential buyer the phantasmal reputation of the premises and that, in his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his down payment. New York law fails to recognize any remedy for damages incurred as a result of the seller's mere silence, applying instead the strict rule of caveat emptor. Therefore, the theoretical basis for granting relief, even under the extraordinary facts of this case, is elusive if not ephemeral.

bolding mine. 

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

Yet the appellate court found for the plaintiff.

You should have also quoted this.

Quote:It should be apparent, however, that the most meticulous inspection and the search would not reveal the presence of poltergeists at the premises or unearth the property's ghoulish reputation in the community. Therefore, there is no sound policy reason to deny plaintiff relief for failing to discover a state of affairs which the most prudent purchaser would not be expected to even contemplate (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 N.Y.2d 543, 551).

Of course it's not on the books. It's common law.

Also -

Quote:Many jurisdictions recognize several forms of stigmatized property, and have passed resolutions or statutes to deal with them. One issue that separates them is disclosure. Depending on the jurisdiction of the house, the seller may not be required to disclose the full facts. Some specific types must always be disclosed, others are up to the jurisdiction, and still others up to the realtor.[3]
The types include:
Criminal stigma: the property was used in the ongoing commission of a crime. For example, a house is stigmatized if it has been used as a brothel, chop shop, or drug den. In the case of drug dens, some drug addicts may inadvertently come to the address expecting to purchase illegal drugs. Most jurisdictions require full disclosure of this sort of element.[3]
Debt stigma: Debt collectors unaware that a debtor has moved out of a particular residence may continue their pursuit at the same location, resulting in harassment of innocent subsequent occupiers. This is particularly pronounced if the collection agency uses aggressive or illegal tactics.[3]
Minimal stigma is known to, or taken seriously by, only a small select group, and such a stigma is unlikely to affect the ability to sell the property; in such a case, realtors may decide to disclose this information in a case-by-case basis.[4]
Murder/suicide stigma: Some jurisdictions in the United States require property sellers to reveal if murder or suicide occurred on the premises. California state law does if the event occurred within the previous three years. To protect sellers from lawsuits, Florida state law does not require any notification.[2] In North Carolina, sellers and agents do not have to volunteer information about the death of previous occupants, but a direct question must be answered truthfully.[1]
Phenomena stigma: Many (but not all) jurisdictions require disclosure if a house is renowned for "haunting", ghost sightings, etc. This is in a separate category from public stigma, wherein the knowledge of "haunting" is restricted to a local market.[3]
Public stigma : when the stigma is known to a wide selection of the population and any reasonable person can be expected to know of it. Examples include the Amityville Horror house and the home of the Menendez brothers. Public stigma must always be disclosed, in almost all American and European jurisdictions.[3]

(bolding mine)

The source is "Reilly, John W. (2000). The Language of Real Estate. Dearborn Real Estate Education. pp. 312–315. ISBN 978-0-7931-3193-8."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmatize...e-Reilly-3

(August 9, 2017 at 2:35 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(August 8, 2017 at 5:20 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: This is not necessarily true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmatized_property

Stambovsky v. Ackley - the property did not in fact have to *be* haunted, the seller just had to believe it was.

The OP is probably full of shit, however.

That wasn't actually a law. The only thing that Stambovsky got was his down payment back and he was allowed to back out of the contract. The judge made it clear that it wasn't any sort of buyer beware or anything like that. So technically - no, there are no laws requiring anyone wishing to sell their house to disclose any sort of non-physical issues. California might come close with something on the books about having to report a murder if it has occurred within the last three years the current owner wishes to sell the house. But outside of that - I checked. I read up on the Stambovsky v Ackley lawsuit just to see if there was some violation of any laws and there were none.

---

(August 8, 2017 at 9:49 pm)pabsta Wrote: I read your responses. The animosity in this forum is over the top.....really bizarre.

When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"? The answer is NOWHERE. What this answer means is, "I don't have an answer to what you are saying and I am ticked off about it". Then who would win the debate? The first candidate. Stay calm guys. If someone says something to you that you believe is wrong, you only have to tell them they're wrong and why you think so. Attacking and ridiculing people is a sign you are not sure of your argument. Only in atheist forums have I seen this animosity.

Also, I'm not forcing any of you to read my thread. If it is THAT threatening to you, just read another thread. You guys act like you have all the answers on the subject of religion, yet you obviously still have a deep curiosity otherwise you wouldn't be hanging out in this Christianity sub-forum 24/7.

Bottom line on Fatima: if NOTHING at all happened in Fatima in 1917, then the newspapers wrote articles about it for nothing, and the people submitted thousands of testimonials to the Church for nothing, and the Church ran an investigation for 13 years for nothing, and made an announcement in 1930 approving of the incident for nothing. The writing is on the wall guys.

LOL you piece of shit. No one held a gun to your head and told you to post your religious crap in an atheist forum. Additionally - plenty of us have asked you to actually prove these claims with tangible scientific methodology and you FAILED time and time again to produce anything except more lies to top off your lies. And then, when you absolutely refuse to accept that we are never going to buy into your brand of woo, you concoct another story about another miracle that you expect us to just believe on your say so. When that doesn't work - you bring in the paranormal bullshit and you can't even show any proper sources for any of this. 

You got called out buddy. You told several lies and then ignored anyone who told you how factually incorrect your line of bullshit was. And you were asked to cite sources for your bullshit paranormal story. Still waiting but I won't hold my breath. 

You're out of gas on this one dude. Why don't you return back to your religious forums. I'm sure you're really popular over there and easily get anyone to believe you just because you say something really happened. 

Go ahead and put the words "stigmatized haunted property lawsuit" (not necessarily in that order) into Google and you will see the stigmatized (haunted) house law is very real. But nice try anyway guys!

(August 9, 2017 at 11:12 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 10:28 am)Nymphadora Wrote: Read my response to CD about that case. The court did not rule non-disclosure as fraudulent. But the buyer was allowed to get his down payment back and get out of the contract. Sellers should be honest about what they know, but there are no laws on the books directing them to reveal whether or not their house is indeed haunted.

The brief itself from that case. Here's just a snippet from the first page of that briefing: 

bolding mine. 

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

Yet the appellate court found for the plaintiff.

You should have also quoted this.

Quote:It should be apparent, however, that the most meticulous inspection and the search would not reveal the presence of poltergeists at the premises or unearth the property's ghoulish reputation in the community. Therefore, there is no sound policy reason to deny plaintiff relief for failing to discover a state of affairs which the most prudent purchaser would not be expected to even contemplate (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 N.Y.2d 543, 551).

Of course it's not on the books.  It's common law.

This is fun.  I love debating legal stuff with people. 

With regards to that case: (same link as I referenced before)

Quote: However, plaintiff herein has not alleged and there is no basis for concluding that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between these parties to an arm's length transaction such as to give rise to a duty to disclose. In addition, there is no allegation that defendants thwarted plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor. (See, London v Courduff, , 141 AD2d, at 804.)

Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion court properly dismissed the complaint.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 9, 1990, modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the first cause of action seeking rescission of the contract reinstated, without costs.

Yes - the guy got his down payment back and was allowed to back out of the contract. That wasn't the point I was arguing. What I was saying was that the information that the OP of THIS THREAD was positing was full out false. He cited no references and still hasn't cited one - that points to any laws on any books that state unequivocally what HE was stating to be true. And THAT was my point. 

Okay... can we close this thread? It's clear that the OP doesn't have any intention of ever following through with any requests made numerous times now and it's really pointless to keep trying to repeat the same thing over and over again when he won't even consider anything other than his own brand of bullshit.

(August 8, 2017 at 9:49 pm)pabsta Wrote: When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"?

This is not a debate. Your first post asked specifically what we all think about the claims, and literally every single response has been precisely about what we think about them, complete with detailed explanations. The above characterisation of events in this thread may reflect the way you think the direction went, however the facts are recorded for all to see that you are mischaracterising things.

(August 9, 2017 at 11:17 am)pabsta Wrote: Go ahead and put the words "stigmatized haunted property lawsuit" (not necessarily in that order) into Google and you will see the stigmatized (haunted) house law is very real. But nice try anyway guys!

I don't need to you ignorant piece of crap. You've embellished stories since your first post. As far as I am concerned, you've already damaged whatever credibility you had when you dismissed opinions on here from people who didn't buy into your brand of woo. Opinions, which by the way, YOU asked for. 

Go play in heavy traffic, moron.

Oh and newsflash for you... just because someone decides to sue someone else, doesn't make the reasons for why they are suing, legal. I could sue you for being a stupid piece of crap. Doesn't mean there are laws on the books saying you actually are a stupid piece of crap. My opinion of you doesn't mean shit in the real world if I can't actually prove you are a stupid piece of crap. Although, given this entire thread, I think I have a pretty good shot at proving it.

Another fact that atheists want to avoid is the subject of Jacinta from Fatima being found incorrupt. Another proof for the supernatural that leaves atheists standing there with wide eyes, especially when they realize there is physical proof they can go see themselves. Always demanding proof, but they won't put the remote control down and get off the couch and go see them, afraid of what they might find.

Details:
http://overcomeproblems.com/incorruptibles.htm

(August 9, 2017 at 11:11 am)Nymphadora Wrote: True that, but our OP was grossly misrepresenting fact by stating there are actual laws (and failing miserably to cite any of them) about paranormal/supernatural incidences pertaining to real estate. My whole point was in the fact that once again, he is a lying liar who's done nothing more than lie out his lying liar hole.

Well put.   A house is haunted only if people think it's haunted, and the more people think it's haunted the more likely you have to disclose it.  So people believing is really the only factor, not a measurement of how many ghosts there are or how many times they over turn your coffee table or any actual evidence.  I'm sure that is lost on the OP.

(August 9, 2017 at 11:28 am)pabsta Wrote: Another fact that atheists want to avoid is the subject of Jacinta from Fatima being found incorrupt. Another proof for the supernatural that leaves atheists standing there with wide eyes, especially when they realize there is physical proof they can go see themselves. Always demanding proof, but they won't put the remote control down and get off the couch and go see them, afraid of what they might find.

Details:
http://overcomeproblems.com/incorruptibles.htm

You know what would really be physical proof of the supernatural?
God-man! https://comicvine.gamespot.com/god-man/4005-121365/

Spontaneous severed limb regrowth!

Immortality. Check the movie "Man from Earth" (2007): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/




Dead bodies that are kept in isolation are no proof of anything supernatural. Sorry to burst your bubble. The Egyptians figured that out 3000 years before Jesus was a toddler.

(August 8, 2017 at 9:49 pm)pabsta Wrote: I read your responses. The animosity in this forum is over the top.....really bizarre.

When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"?

This is a great demonstration of the kind of cherry picking that they theist mind is capable of.

There have been pages of legitimate responses on the specific claims, yet pabsta only comments on the animosity he detects.

This comes from the mindset of someone that already has their narrative in place, then when subjected to something that does not fit their narrative, has to ignore it or twist it to fit their narrative.

It's either that, or being in the state of cognitive dissonance, or, heaven forbid, admit being wrong.