Senator Brent Steele of Bedford introduced legislation during the 2007 session of the Indiana General Assembly (Senate Bill 352) that would have done away with the seller's residential real estate sales disclosure requirement. He did not request a hearing on the bill so that it could be, in his words, “properly vetted by the industry". At Senator Steele's request, the Indiana Association of REALTORS is publishing this letter from Senator Steele in order to begin that conversation with its membership.
Indiana REALTORS, what do you think?
45 comments:
I believe that if the sellers know that something is in deed wrong with the house they should have to disclose it. Sure there are problems with everything, but this is the biggest investment in most people's lives. I do believe that every buyer should have a home inspection and that the inspectors should be responsible for what is missed and not the sellers, but I do believe that the sellers are obligated to tell if the is a problem with the home. I do think something needs to be done about the sue happy people, but don't do away with the Seller's Residential Real Estate Disclosure.
I am 100% behind Senator Steele. The seller's disclosure form is a joke. You have to be 18 years old to enter into a real estate contract, so act like an adult. Do your homework, hire professionals. The problem with putting the onus on the seller is that everyone's interpretation of what is a "problem" is different. Let your inspector do his job and get on with your life and stop whining.
When listing a home, the disclosure form is great to help the agent not only find out about problems with the property, it also reminds the seller to tell about new, updated and repaired items they may have forgotten about.
Without disclosure, you have to wonder if that fresh paint in the basement was done to "freshen" the look or to cover the water stains from leaking walls.
As far as inspectors are concerned, I've noticed most whole house inspectors make themselves liable only up to the amount they charged for the inspection. Also, if they say they couldn't properly access something,(too much debris around the water heater, not a large enough portal to the attic), they simply check off on their form as "inaccessable".
I would hate to see the disclosure go. I encourage my sellers to tell everything up front and this required form helps them to do just that.
This is tough! I too have seen inspectors' comments of "too much debris", "inaccessible", etc; thus leaving the buyer wonder as to the condition. However, the seller should not be liable for issues down the road, if an inspection is completed. Bankers, lawyers, Realtors, Inspectors are supposedly professionals in our area of expertise. Aren't we all licensed by the State of Indiana? We expect to be compensated accordingly; shouldn't we also accept the responsibility of our positions?! DEL Bromm, Managing Broker
The intent of the whole system we have in place is to make real estate transactions as transparent and fair as possible. I think the disclosure form plays a very important part in this process. Is it perfect, No. Can it be improved, yes. At the present time it is one factor that covers the REALTOR if something is found wrong with the property later. REALTORs are required to disclose problems. If the home owner states in writting that there are no problems that does somewhat cover the REALTOR. Is this complete coverage, No. If the REALTOR does not use their head then they can get burned. We do not ned to become horse traders. I also feel that any agent who does not strongly recommend to their client that they have a professional inspect the home is doing their client a disservice.
I sell real estate in Bloomington, usually representing buyers. I think that the sellers' disclosure form is a valid tool to prevent the seller from hiding defects that they know about. To my understanding, most states agree and have similar such form in place. I think doing away with the disclosure form would be a bad idea and a step backwards. Maybe adding some language on it urging the buyer to get their own inspection could help reduce the lawsuits, but doing away with the form entirely will only assist shady sellers from purposefully hiding defects from buyers. I want to move farther away from consumers viewing my profession as similar to that of selling used cars. Doing away with the sellers' disclosure will only hurt confidence in our industry, and be seen by consumers as aiding unscrupulous sellers in hiding known defects from the buyer. I vote Stay.
I personally feel that the RE Disclosure Form, makes the sellers accountable for the "product" that they are selling. It not only makes them accountable to the buyer but also the agent. I would never discourage a buyer from an inspection (that's one of the MOST important things that a buyer can do.) however, many agents do not encourage the inspections, forcing their buyers to rely on the RESDF. Let's be honest, a first time homebuyer may not be aware that they need an inspection, and unencouraged by their agent, they feel the form is their source of knowledge about the property. It would be such a shame if the form were no longer required. And I believe it would actually lead to more litigation problems than less.
I believe that the sellers disclosure should stay. If it is properly used it not only gives the seller a venue for communicating defects to the buyer, thus reducing their liability, but it gives the buyer some advance knowledge of whether they want to pursue the purchase at all. It also relieves the buyers agent of some liability. Everything in our industry is about protecting the public and disclose, disclose, disclose. I also believe if the sellers disclosure were no longer required it would lead to more litigation not less. Absolutely the buyer should have inspections done for their own protection but the seller should not be able to hide a known defect. I always counsel buyers that the sellers disclosure is just to the best of the sellers knowledge so don't expect them to be electricians, plumbers etc.
I think the form is currently less useful than it should be, but that it is an important tool for us as well as for buyers. I do 95+% of my transactions with buyers, and I would never allow my buyers to purchase a house without recommending that it be inspected and asking for a 1 year home warranty. These are becoming almost standard in my work. If the buyers don't want to do either or both of these things, I always inform them that they could really be in for a surprise and could find lots of hidden damage. Smart buyers (read: those who are not overly-litigious and actually accept responsibility for their own actions & decisions) will make their own informed choice, but there have been cases where the form informed them of a defect that made them choose not to purchase the home. I think if we eliminate the form, we do away with the hope of honesty in the marketplace. Unfortunately, many people no longer are honest if they do not have to be, and eliminating this form would lead to more headaches and costs for buyers.
I believe that Mr. Steele ought to take a long walk on a short pier.
I cannot believe that we would step back in time to a buyer beware non disclosure system. There is no comparison of a used car purchase to that of a home purchase. I find the Sellers Residential Real Estate Disclosure to be a helpful tool.
Mr Steele is right. A seller should be able to sell the property as is. No writen or verbal wartenties implyed the same as a bank or the sherrif. Also The seller is paying the Brokers to sell the property. The seller should be able to expect a fudicary relationship from both the listing and selling broker. The listing broker should be able to expect a fudicary realtionship from the selling broker who they are paying. Is a car salesman representing the buyer? NO! Buyers agengy is new found nonsence and contrary to 500 years of English common law.
I have seen the good and bad of the sellers disclosure.
1. It is not filled out by anyone with any more qualifications than the purchaser. (What is a cistern? What is 100 amp? Does it have aluminum wiring? etc etc) A high percent of sellers bought the house lived in it for only a short time and are moving on. They may have never been in the attic or the crawl space.
2. Its subject to ones interpretation. Does it have mold if it was remediated? Is it mold or mildew? Is that crack in the basement wall structural or cosmetic? My idea of a problem or defect and your idea of a problem or defect are probably two different things!! "The well works but you cant run both bath tubs the washer and wash your car at the same time." Is that a problem or defect? Probably not to the seller. They just dont run every faucet at the same time. Is it a problem to me??? Not if I dont run every faucet. If I run every faucet it soon will be a problem!!!
3. Buyers are led to believe the disclosure is the holy grail of the house. They use it as a crutch instead of just a piece of information that needs to be verified. Due diligence period!!!
I fully believe in disclosure. I would disclose the defects in a used car also. I think if something is know you should disclose it. I think the form should be used but it should say on it in bold letters above the buyers signature line.
"Information deemed reliable but NOT gauranteed. By signing this form you understand you are buying the property AS-IS and have been provided the opportunity to have the property inspected by a professional during your due diligence period."
or something to that extent:)
Keep it!
Senator Steele's letter makes sense to me on many levels and I agree with the vast majority of his thinking. However, I believe that the seller's residential sales disclosure form is an excellent tool if used properly. Unfortunately, in my experience, the buyers often ignore the real estate disclosure form entirely. Some buyers choose not to obtain inspections. Some buyers use their inspector to attempt to make an existing house new again. In our city's buyer's market, in 2007, the buyers seem to have the upper hand in negotiations, hence the almost outrageous demands on the inspection report. Seller's often don't see a problem, they just see something they have lived with and so could the next person. Use the seller's residential sales disclosure form to continue to protect the seller, but also to inform the buyer of potential issues. And be done with it. Move on. Don't sue the seller after she signs the deed!
As I often counsel Buyer's who demand that the Seller make repairs per the inspection findings; "The FIX may be worse than the PROBLEM!" This idea sounds too simple to me. I think we need to examine all the possible ramifications. What are, & what will be the motivations of all the transaction parties, all the industry parties, etc. Seems that "known defects" reasonably need to disclosed, not only by a Seller but also a licensed real estate agent.. If you take away the Sellers disclosure form, then what is liability of the agent per "Known Defects?" We could end up with a "Don't ask - don't tell" process... I bet the Lawyers will love it, no matter what is done to the Seller's disclosure form. - A Pessimistic Realtor
Keep the form, BUT, STATE IN LARGE BOLD PRINT that it is an opinion only, is deemed reliable but not guranteed, and IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE A PROFESSIONAL INSPECTION (although the term "professional inspector" is an even bigger can of worms..unaccessible ? recommend inspection by a "qualified" HVAC/Elec/Plmbr, etc, etc. COME ON! ...their licensure means even less than that of the hundreds of untrained, unprofessional "Realtors".)
BE PROFESSIONAL, ACT PROFESSIONAL, BE HONEST, and BE ETHICAL and there will be no inclination to sue (in most cases....)
Keep the seller disclosure!
Why not have it both ways?
1 Keep the disclosure form (make it more relevant).
2. Make the closing the end of the matter.
3. Do our job as real estate professionals.
4. Insist on an inspection.
5. Force the marketplace to hold inspectors accountable.
Done deal.
I can't sleep in my car.
I advise buyers that the form must be taken with a grain of salt as there are many things the homeowner doesn't know about their home. It carries no weight as they can claim ignorance. But it does START to educate the buyer about things they may not have thought about the home.
We really can't get rid of the SRRED unless we can put into effect something with more teeth to protect/educate the buyer.
BUYER BEWARE is not a good practice in the biggest investment many people make; one they make so infrequently they can't keep up with changes. Unfortunatly we run the risk of being blamed for problems in the house MORE OFTEN without it. We don't need more responsibility to our buyer for investigating a house that isn't ours, than we have now.
i have read mr. Steel's letter. As an Attorney and Broker, I decided to read the case law cited, and then looked at more recent case law as well. i have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Steel's analysis of these court decisions.
The courts are now just resolving in its normal course, the correct application and interpretation of the disclosure forms and the statute.
More recent case law such as REUM v. MERCER 817 NE2d 1267 (Ind App 2004). and McCuthand v. Blanck 846 NE 2d 256 (Ind App. 2006) clarify the responsiblities of sellers and buyers.
Buyers have EVERY right to insist on honesty in the disclosure. The inspection is not intended to relieve the seller of his/her obligations.
The statutee and case law merely set a high bar to hurdle and claim loss under the disclosure statute. That bar is to prove Actual Knowledge of a Current Defect.
Proving Actual Knowledge is often not hard as it is expensive. To prove actual knowledge sometimes deppositions must be taken and time consumed talking to neighbors and relatives who will admit that the sellers knew of the defect.
The Defect must also be current. in Reum v. Mercer, the court found that the seller does not have to reveal past problems that he thought, in good faith, were repaired. the disclosure, in other words, is not overly burdensome.
The difference between real property and the caveat emptor that accomapnie4s, as the author suggested, automobile sales is simply this.
the seller of cars does not have intimate knowledge of the car. the seller/dealer really relies upon the honesty of the person he received it from. in addtion, the dealer is not aware of the maintenance of the car over the length of time of ownership.
In contrast, the seller of real estate, residential real estate, is intimate with the property and knwos of its history and attempted fixes. the seller has information that is required on the disclosure that no inspector could find.
i will post this case law on my website, www.abramsplus.com in the next few days. If i can be of further help, please call me at 317-917-4808, or email abrams@abramsplus.com.
respectfuly, G. Douglas Abrams
I believe the Seller's Disclosure should be more detailed (ie space for mulitple systems, etc.) and give more space for comment. I also believe many people live in their homes know little about them and cannot always accurately answer the questions as the Buyer may hope. That is the purpose of an inspection. I do agree with other postings that the inspector should carry a lot of the responsibility for their inspection. If the buyer waves the inspection I believe that they should also waive their right to any form of litigation on the property.
Why doesn't Senator Steele take a look at appraisals. Why do they need a copy of the purchase agreement and MLS? That is one of the biggest problems in real estate today in my opinion.
Keep the Seller's Disclosure and modify it.
I can see both sides of this issue. The average seller doesn't have the construction expertise to determine the difference between a cosmetic and a structural defect and neither do most Realtors for that matter. That said, I can see the argument for eliminating the liability of the seller (and the broker) for problems they know little or nothing about. The other side of the coin is that by limiting liability you open the door for the crooks to take over the industry. There are already enough unscrupulous individuals (with and without licenses) that recognize problems, use them to their advantage in a purchase negotiation, slap on a coat of paint and some new carpet and wait for the buyer that either doesn't know that he or she needs an inspection or can't afford to get an inspection and not get the home. In my humble opinion, our industry would be better served if the legislature would require the seller of real property to supply the home inspection and a buyer's warranty with the sale of any house to an individual. Certainly, there would be exceptions like foreclosures and tax sales, but those types of sales aren't attracting the retail buyer at top dollar. My fear is that the elimination of the seller's disclosure and the resulting liability would open the door even wider for the liars and thieves to take advantage of innocent people and further degrade the face of our profession to the public. I encourage my sellers to include the cost of a home inspection and warranty in the listing price of the home. I only want to do business with honest sellers, buyers and agents. I feel that a somewhat more comprehensive disclosure would boost people's confidence in our profession and the real estate market as a whole. If you really want to pass a law that will do some good, why don't you write a bill that would require every seller to use a licensed broker, every broker arrange for an impartial inspection and every inspector to be financially responsible for all undiscovered structural defects that involve the safety and security of the occupants?
I would like a clarification on the document (Indiana Code:24-4.6-2-7 and 2-11 paragraph, sentence 2: from "the qualities... the purchaser has no right to rely on the representations of the purchaser.
Is that language correct, or did someone misprint information?
Having practiced this profession for over 21 years, I have seen many changes. A very good change was when the sellers disclosure was required to be a part of the purchase package. Before the disclosure was required, I was spending more time in the courtroom than selling properties.
The disclosure forces the seller to be honest and upfront, and quite honestly, has been an excellent tool for the listing agent. To do away with the disclosure could send us back to the courtroom. And as for comparing a house sale to a car sale, the value between the two speaks for itself. Please, don't discard the sellers disclosure.
In Real Estate, Buyer Beware is a term usually associated nowadays with For Sale By Owners - they are NOT required to fill out Sellers Disclosures. It would be a step backwards in our Profession to eliminate this - the oversimplified, hasty generalization of comparing a HOME to a used car is illogical. Their Purpose and Lifespan are not the same. One provides Shelter the other is a form of transportation.
KEEP THE FORM - make minor changes or update if necessary to include number of heating or a/c units etc...
Yes. The disclosure is indeed a very intricate part of the real estate transaction. I have nothing personal against car sales persons but the industry seems to be flack-ed with criticism about closing the deal honestly and revealing all known facts. Our industry comes under enough scrutiny without more vexed buyers. Let the disclosure serve as a "checks and balances".
KEEP SELLER'S DISCLOSURE!!! Getting rid of this form will only make matters worse. Sellers would not voluntarily tell what is wrong with their house without it. The majority of Sellers think that they are liable if they don't tell the truth. I think it is more of a help than not. If we get rid of the disclosure we are not only doing a dis-service to buyers, but we are opening a huge can of worms....
KEEP THE DISCLOSURE! In addition to its stated purpose the SRRESD gives listing and selling agents another tool to educate and inform our clients about their real estate transaction.
Encouraging our clients to behave as they would want to be treated will go a long way toward avoiding litigation. Roger Howard, broker/owner, 1st Home Realty.
I like the idea of having a formal seller's disclosure regarding the known condition of the real estate. However, the current form needs a complete overhaul. It prompts the seller to provide specific information, but then does not provide adequate answer optins or reasonable space to comment further. I say keep the disclosure, but fix it!
I don't understand the last phrase of Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 of Sen. Steele's letter. Should the last word have been "Seller"? Nonetheless I strongly agree with Sen. Steele's comments and urge support for his efforts.
Keep the seller disclosure.
This document makes sellers think
twice about unloading defective
properties and helps to maintain
a fair market price for them.
Lawsuits will happen regardless of the document. Even if its value
is mostly psychological, the disclosure statement is needed as
part of a comprehensive buyer education progam. We can all agree
that informed buyers should make better choices and should need less legal representation.
It looks like alot of realtors are using the sales disclosure form to get sellers to recognize problems and list at a lower price. I don't think that was their intent, sorry guys.
Give me a break. I rarely see a disclosure identifying "hidden" defects. I guess all the home are "up to snuff". Yeah Right.
Get rid of the Seller's Disclosure Form. It is an absolute joke and only being used as a tool to try to hang a seller after the buyer doesn't order proper inspections. If a buyer can't afford the proper inspections they shouldn't be getting in over their head with a new home, mortgage etc.
How many of these current foreclosures had "proper" inspections, not just a get a form filled out for the file inspection.
Steele is right. Dump the form, it's a joke.
We should keep the Disclosure forms!
In most listings the sellers disclosure has a sycological effect on the seller to tell the condition of those things listed. However, it should not be the definig rule of law regarding the accurate condition of those items.
Everything is used - let the buyer beware. It is a list of areas, appliances and properties that each buyer sould have at least some cursory info on but it should be the buyer's responsibility to have a thorough inspection perform-ed.The Seller's Disclosure is a good document for info if for nothing else but shoud be marked and legaly identified as such.
MLS Agent (10 yeaars)
I think the sellers disclosure is
a good way for the Realtor to avoid
any responsibility of the condition
of the property. Granted it is not
overall solution that we face but I
think it helps. So far I have not
seen it stand up in court, but is a
signifcant factor in helping to at least get the seller to discose
things that he would otherwize ignor.
I believe that there is a good reason for disclosure, or we would not have it in the first place, eliminate no, improve it, yes,without it, count on more lawsuits. Everyone should have home inspection,and maybe every inspector should see the disclosure first, so they know to look beyond the evident. I've had inspectors miss things, I've found.
Keep the Seller's disclosure form. It is the tool that is used by We, Professionals to initially educate both parties, Buyers & Sellers to actions to come:
Honesty is the best policy--disclose what you know. Humans do not have XRay vision (neither do Inspectors). Sellers fill this out "to the best of their knowledge"--this alone should cause a Buyers to Hire an Inspector. Whose words will sometimes
suggest 'more detailed check by a professional'. Nearly every time a 2nd professional comes in to get to the root of a problem -- both parties get an education they would have possibly neglected for many more years to come. Many items can be cured easily, others require time,money and effort.
I have had Buyers ask me --why don't the Seller's just inspect the home---my answer, What if they hired their brother to do it? Would it be biased?
The Disclosure gives us the 'beginning point' for the topic of inspection.
I have received a copy of the proposal to repeal the requirement for a Seller to provide a Seller’s Residential Real Estate Sales Disclosure form. I certainly hope that this will be reviewed thoroughly and that we will continue to have an enhanced Seller’s Disclosure in the near future. I have been a REALTOR in the Bloomington market for 17 years. I greatly appreciate that Sellers must enlighten prospective Buyers with information about their home. A home inspection is simply a minute view of the property at that specific given time. There are many circumstances that would not be revealed during a home inspection that a Buyer becomes more knowledgeable by having the Sellers Disclosure.
A few of these that come to mind are: Wood-destroying insect infestation, heating and cooling systems, roof, water leakage in crawlspaces or basements. Since the inspection is completed in one brief 1-3 hour timeframe, the Buyer would miss the opportunity to have a better understanding of the home during the changing seasons in Indiana. Active termites will only be found in the warmer months of the year. There may be damage that is behind walls, etc. that could be more adequately studied if there’s an indication from the Seller of past infestation and the locations of such. It is impossible to inspect the air conditioning systems if the exterior temperature remains below 56 degrees. It provides some peace of mind for the Sellers to define whether it appeared to be functioning properly during the warmer months. If there is any indication otherwise on the form, it provides the Buyers enough information that they could research more thoroughly with the HVAC contractor that the Sellers had most recently hired. Imagine the drought that we’ve experienced in some recent summers. Wouldn’t we as Buyers want to have the knowledge of wet basements or crawlspaces if the Sellers were fully aware? I as a Buyer would greatly appreciate the opportunity to have someone determine the reason for it upfront or corrective measures that I might take in the future to prevent recurrence.
I represent many Buyers and Sellers each year in the purchase or sale of residential real estate. It would be a true travesty for the current requirement to be repealed so that there’s no insight provided by the Sellers to the Buyers. I make this statement as a representative for each party. It allows the Sellers the opportunity to provide the information to prospective Buyers. It allows the Buyers to make more of an informed decision about the property based upon years of knowledge from the Sellers vs. a small window of insight by an inspector on a specific date.
I have sold well over 1,100 properties in 17 years as a REALTOR. I have only had one transaction to date that the Buyer pursued the Seller about a defect that supposedly wasn’t disclosed. I believe that it was determined thru the courts that the Buyer desired to have a different heating system than the geothermal system originally in the home NOT that there was a defect with the original system. None of my Buyers to date have been disenchanted with the information available on the Sellers Residential Sales Disclosure after the purchase. The Sellers Residential Real Estate Sales Disclosure has provided insight into the property at the various seasons that would be unavailable otherwise.
I agree completely that the Comments section at the bottom could be positioned better to enable a Seller to define an item in more detail. Below are a few enhancements that I’d love to see with the current Sellers Residential Real Estate Sales Disclosure. These include:
Water & Sewer System
Delete Geothermal and Heat Pump from this section. They are types of HVAC.
List the following as separate types of septic systems:
Septic Holding Tank only
Septic Field/Bed
Septic Mound
Heating and Cooling System
Radiant Hot Water Heat (A very high percentage of owners think “Hot Water Heat” refers to the water heater.)
Insert the following additional heat types after Furnace Heat/Electric:
Geothermal
Heat Pump
Furnace heat/fuel oil
Ceiling cable heat
Electric baseboard heat
Other Disclosures
Need to strike a line between:
“Have you received any notices by any governmental or quasi-governmental agencies affecting this property?” and “Are there any structural problems with the building?”
Additional Comments and/or Explanations
Expand the space available within this section to enable a person to explain any of the answers above. There’s a substantial amount of unused space at the bottom of the form that could be better utilized as part of the comment section.
Many thanks for the opportunity to provide some insight as a REALTOR representing both buyers and sellers!
I am firmly opposed to the elimination of seller's disclosures.
In my opinion I think we should keep the form as an information tool but have an agreement section that the home is being sold “AS IS”. This would make the Buyer aware of any defects that the Seller is aware of and give Realtors the opportunity to stress the importance of a home inspection being done. If a Buyer were to know that there is no way they can come back on a Seller they would be more likely to get an inspection done and have items addressed prior to closing. My vote is to keep the form and add a section to accept the home "AS IS".
Seller's should be required to disclose anything known that will have an material affect on the value of the property. Without this requirement, there will be more buyer's getting ripped off than ever before. Potentially leading to more buyer's just walking away from substandard property, only for the bank to be left with the lemon (foreclosure). (Not to mention the potential adverse health and safety issues.)
Dishonest people acting as investors flipping properties will have more incentive to cover up and hide material items that would negatively affect the value and even potentially creating health and safety issues. What would happen if toxic mold, or a condition deemed likely to lead to toxic mold, was not properly addressed and/or disclosed and the buyer suffers medical loss because of that? What about a structural condition that the seller knows about which could lead to loss of life or limb if not corrected properly? The list goes on...
Come on folks. Put aside your arrogant pride and look to others who have already implemented good ideas for the real estate industry. For example, read the California disclosure laws. They have figured it out long time ago. AND IT WORKS! There are other states that have been there as well.
This goes beyond just the disclosure laws. It applies to all real estate law in Indiana, most of which should be re-written, removed, ammended, etc., but ELIMINATION of seller disclosure??? How absurd!
PS. as to the topic of "AS-IS" sales, ask 12 agents, investors, buyers and sellers for their definition of AS-IS? Enough said..
My vote: REVISION, NOT ELIMINATION
In all due respect, it's bad enough that our profession has a less than stellar reputation with the public - there is a reason why we as professionals, must follow so many guidelines and paper trails. At some point, seller(s) must take some responsibility when it comes to disclosure. Certainly, you're not always going to know every little detail about a property, and as we know, things can change on a daily basis.
I'm not saying the sellers are 100% responsible - and they should not be down the road. But, if they know something about the property, disclose it! Yes, buyers must be encouraged to inspect and "do their homework" as well. Perhaps the Sellers Disclosure form should be updated on a regular basis. Maybe some buyers' agents would have some suggestions there. What's a little more paperwork to ensure things are done properly? Basically, the Senator is saying all real estate would be sold as-is. Forgive me for sounding crude, but I think it's irresponsible, lazy and half-assed to even suggest such a Bill.
It's not a matter of whether or not we should eliminate the seller's disclosure form, we should always have at least some sort of disclosure from the sellers. What should be the issue here is to have adequate seller's disclosure forms.
Post a Comment