Man Bites Dog ” Real Estate Edition
One of the odder anecdotes from a continuing ed class the other week was the hapless home seller who got sued not because their house was haunted ” but because it wasn’t.
Apparently, the Seller had disclosed in their Minnesota Seller’s Disclosure that the home had experienced “paranormal activity.”
The Buyer bought relying on that.
When the promised ghosts (ghouls? goblins? witches?) didn’t, umm . . . materialize, post-closing, they sued.
I’ve got to believe the Buyer and Seller either settled ” and for a (very) small amount ” or the suit was tossed by the judge (see analysis, below).
Just imagine the TV audience ” let alone the competition for gallery seats ” for THAT one (“as its next witness, the plaintiff calls to the stand . . . “).
“In Re Haunted House” ” the Lawsuit
I suppose the Buyer’s argument would be that they bought the house intending to use it as a (commercial) haunted house.
Presumably, their damages would then be lost revenue.
The problem with that argument is zoning: the home would have had to be zoned for commercial activity.
Most single-family homes in Minnesota are zoned R-1 (“R” for residential).
Hurdle #2 for the Buyer, to beg the obvious: exactly how does one prove ” or disprove ” that a home is “haunted,” anyways?