Current Events > There was a guy who sued because the house he bought was haunted. And he won.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley

Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), commonly known as the Ghostbusters ruling, is a case in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, that held that a house, which the owner had previously advertised to the public as haunted by ghosts, legally was haunted for the purpose of an action for rescission brought by a subsequent purchaser of the house

---

What did he win?
---

Er what? He lost the case, it said.
---

Caelthus posted...

Er what? He lost the case, it said.

Oh the topic title says he won

I didn't click the link. It's Saturday (Sunday), reading is for weekdays.
---

Caelthus posted...

Er what? He lost the case, it said.

Well, he lost at trial, but then he appealed and he won.
---

Essentially the court determined that for all legal purposes the house was considered haunted (which would lower its value) and that was not disclosed in the sale. The buyer of the house had purchased a house for more than it was worth because of the non-disclosure of its haunted status.

The take away is that if a seller knows of a condition that would lesson the value of the house (usually comes up with things like termite damage or fire/smoke damage that was covered up) and doesn't disclose that condition, the buyer can be entitled to the difference in value.
---

whitelytning posted...

Essentially the court determined that for all legal purposes the house was considered haunted (which would lower its value) and that was not disclosed in the sale. The buyer of the house had purchased a house for more than it was worth because of the non-disclosure of its haunted status.

The take away is that if a seller knows of a condition that would lesson the value of the house (usually comes up with things like termite damage or fire/smoke damage that was covered up) and doesn't disclose that condition, the buyer can be entitled to the difference in value.

Most states don't require that you disclose stigmatized properties. Generally, it has to be a material adverse fact.
---

whitelytning posted...

Essentially the court determined that for all legal purposes the house was considered haunted (which would lower its value) and that was not disclosed in the sale. The buyer of the house had purchased a house for more than it was worth because of the non-disclosure of its haunted status.

The take away is that if a seller knows of a condition that would lesson the value of the house (usually comes up with things like termite damage or fire/smoke damage that was covered up) and doesn't disclose that condition, the buyer can be entitled to the difference in value.

well that makes sense. nice clickbait, tc.
---

can't be selling no houses with no ghosts in these united states