Touchy topic - Murdered ***warning

[twobobsworth]

Couple of property sales with murders:

http://www.jenman.com.au/news_article.php?id=115

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/murder-house-sold/story-e6freuzi-1111115067161

 

[pully]

townsville hospital was also involved in a scandal re treatment of psychiatric patients, ward 10b? not sure if anyone died because of their treatment?

was it bundaburg hospital that had the so called dr death??

nevertheless if the hospital site is being redeveloped i would imagine all would be forgotten?
regards.

 

[65fbk]

I find this intriguing. So the law requires disclosure because it recognises the existence of ghosts, or at least acknowledges that some people believe in them?

However, a house may be flood prone, yet the buyer must determine this fact themselves via council records and searches, no disclosure required..

 

[wylie]

I find this intriguing. So the law requires disclosure because it recognises the existence of ghosts, or at least acknowledges that some people believe in them?

I think the law requires disclosure because the value of a house can be adversely affected by a murder having been committed there (at least that is my opinion).

However, a house may be flood prone, yet the buyer must determine this fact themselves via council records and searches, no disclosure required..

I think the two things are not related at all.

 

[wylie]

I'd buy it, i don't mid, every house has usually had someone die in it at some stage, unless brand new.

I do agree that SOME older houses in older areas would naturally have had someone pass away in them, but "every house has usually had someone die in it at some stage" is one of those sweeping statements that is just not true. I know you are young, a little younger than my 20 year old son, and he makes these statements all the time, so that is cool .

As for disclosure i'd say 7 years, because this is how long the records are held for..Not 100% sure, but this would be my bet.

It is a funny thing, because our first house together had the owner die in bed in our bedroom (before we bought the house . I did get a little creeped out by it, but our neighbour found her and told us about it after we had gotten to know her. The spinster lady who built our house in the 1930s (rather unusual lady, I would think) died in her sleep in her 90s so I was okay with it, after about a day of pondering it.

Living in a murder house would creep me out altogether.

 

[Lil Skater]

Haha, fair point, maybe a bit exaggerated.

I wouldn't care if it was a natural, i wouldn't care about a murder, but i must say at first i would get creeped out. I'm not overly supersticious, but can be at times.

 

[wylie]

I remember a local house where someone had "done themselves in". My mother and a few other agents were taken through to give an appraisal.

Mum said they were told before entering what had happened in the house, but she was quite bothered for a while afterwards, as nothing had been cleared from the house. There were dolls heads and piles of things, lots of rubbish and takeaway containers - basically left as it was. She had thought the contents would have been cleared.

She said had she known she would not have gone in. It did creep me out, just hearing it.

 

[twobobsworth]

For me I think it would depend on how the person died and if it was murder - was the case solved.

Would anybody want to live in the Lin family home. All 5 dead and not one suspect. No thanks.

 

[Lil Skater]

I remember a local house where someone had "done themselves in". My mother and a few other agents were taken through to give an appraisal.

Mum said they were told before entering what had happened in the house, but she was quite bothered for a while afterwards, as nothing had been cleared from the house. There were dolls heads and piles of things, lots of rubbish and takeaway containers - basically left as it was. She had thought the contents would have been cleared.

She said had she known she would not have gone in. It did creep me out, just hearing it.

Okay that's a different end of the scale!

Why would anyone want to walk through a house where their belongings hadn't been cleared! That's a bit creepy, i feel it would be a bit surreal, even not knowing the person. Their house shows you who they were and could've been so that would be overwhelming.

As for the Lin family, not anytime soon, but if it happened years ago, don't see a problem!

 

[craigb]

a bit spooky for some, but they might have been murdered while somone was looking for a million $$ worth of diamonds a cash, it could still be there, ??? lol

 

[Perp]

I find this intriguing. So the law requires disclosure because it recognises the existence of ghosts, or at least acknowledges that some people believe in them?

I'm with you (I think); I think this is a RIDICULOUS requirement. The law should deal in tangibles. If people hold a superstition about this, then they should ask about the history of the property, and they should be answered truthfully, but requiring a vendor to disclose is plain ridiculous. As I already said in this thread:

What's next? Revealing whether any kinky sexual practises have been engaged in in the home? Whether anybody prone to depression has slept in any of the rooms? A Scientology e-meter read-out for each prior occupant? Frequency of good and bad dreams?

Do all these requirements extend to the neighbours' homes as well?

I mean, really - when prior occupational activity unrelated to the nature of the property starts to be relevant, where does it end?

 

[65fbk]

I'm with you (I think); I think this is a RIDICULOUS requirement. The law should deal in tangibles. If people hold a superstition about this, then they should ask about the history of the property, and they should be answered truthfully, but requiring a vendor to disclose is plain ridiculous. As I already said in this thread:

Agreed. Another example: A property may have active termites. The vendor is under no obligation to disclose this to buyers, it is their responsibility to employ someone to inspect and find the problem.

However, the possibility of supernatural activity must be disclosed. Ridiculous!

Conditions of contract: 14 days finance, 14 days building, pest and ghostbusters inspection.

 

[travelbug]

Would you buy a house where babies had died?

My previous neighbour had a party where a baby died (visiting neighbour) in her pram (put down to cot death). A few months later the owners baby died in the house (put down to cot death). She was sleeping with the baby in her bed so maybe not.

I think it's different to old people dying in their sleep. As mentioned I think it depends on the circumstances.

My mum was bought up in a very large old house that everyone thought was haunted. Someone died there and she wouldn't go in one room. She used to race down the hall past the room everyday.

 

[Simon]

My mum had a house down the street in which someone was murdered.

Ten years on all the locals still refer to it as the "Murder House"

I don't think people do forget over time.

 

[wylie]

Agreed. Another example: A property may have active termites. The vendor is under no obligation to disclose this to buyers, it is their responsibility to employ someone to inspect and find the problem.

You will not have 80% of your potential tenants refuse to rent because it may have had termites in the past .

However, the possibility of supernatural activity must be disclosed. Ridiculous!

Nobody was talking about "supernatural activity". That is ridiculous! I'll bet if you asked 100 people whether they would live in a house where there had been a murder, 90 of them would not want to live there. I would not want to live in such a house, and it has NOTHING to do with supernatural activity or ghosts.

Conditions of contract: 14 days finance, 14 days building, pest and ghostbusters inspection.

People certainly do "tag" houses. I have seen it and know of houses that are so "tagged" for many years.

I just think a murder house and a house that may have had termites or been flooded are so far apart that they should not be compared.

Happy that others disagree though .

 

[Perp]

Would you buy a house where babies had died?

Yes, I would (if I was otherwise interested in purchasing). I don't think that past activity has any impact. I'd happily live in a house where some had been murdered, where somebody had committed suicide, that had formerly been a vet surgery where animals were euthanased, that used to be a funeral parlour... any of those. I don't think those activities have any lasting effect on the property.

I think if people want to be superstitious, then that's their prerogative, and I'm not criticising that. What I have a big issue with is when superstition becomes enshrined in law, because it's so subjective. Whose superstitions do we acknowledge as being "standard"? Where are they codified? Do we take into account "lucky" and "unlucky" numbers?

Do we have to declare:

* that Aboriginal people consider the area cursed?
* that the person who registered the title back in the 1920s was suspect of being a pedophile?
* that people of a particular religion previously lived in the property?
* that a pet's ashes were scattered in the garden?
* that your marriage went through problems whilst living in the house?

Whose superstitions are the legally accepted ones? What if there are other people who have a belief that if nothing bad has ever happened in the property and everybody who's ever lived there has been happy and prosperous, then it must be overdue for some bad karma? Do we have to declare the unusual happiness that's previously surrounded the property?

What steps do we have to take to find out the history, if we have no idea? If the property's very old, do we have to engage private investigators and genealogists to research all the previous occupants? What about rumour? What if it's rumoured that there was a murder in the house 100 years ago, but searching the newspapers etc can find no record to substantiate the rumour? Do you still have to declare it if it can't be established?

I just think this ridiculous decision has opened up Pandora's Box.

 

[Perp]

I just think a murder house and a house that may have had termites or been flooded are so far apart that they should not be compared.

Here we agree, my friend. Termites and flooding are a tenant's business and may affect the livability of the property; a murder won't.

Nobody was talking about "supernatural activity". That is ridiculous! I'll bet if you asked 100 people whether they would live in a house where there had been a murder, 90 of them would not want to live there. I would not want to live in such a house, and it has NOTHING to do with supernatural activity or ghosts.

If a decision not to live in a house where there's been a murder isn't related to a concern about supernatural activity, then what is the basis for it?

And if 90% wouldn't want to live there, then I obviously know less about my fellow Australians than I thought! I really thought it would be quite a fringe concern.

 

[kathryn d]

The house sold for 19K below the asking price. I guess I thought it would be more of a bargain. Was the asking price below appraised value??

 

[wylie]

If a decision not to live in a house where there's been a murder isn't related to a concern about supernatural activity, then what is the basis for it?

For me personally, I just would be thinking about what happened, so I suppose it would bother me, but not from any worry about ghosts or other supernatural activity. I liken it to being sad when I pass a cross on the side of the road. I think about the person who died there. I don't think I am alone, but obviously we are all different.

And if 90% wouldn't want to live there, then I obviously know less about my fellow Australians than I thought! I really thought it would be quite a fringe concern.

I know from when mum was selling houses, that I am not alone in my thinking. I picked 90% but really have no basis for this number. I know my friends feel the same way. There have been stories in the media about problems where houses have been the site of a murder, and the problems the landlords have had trouble re-renting the houses, or selling them.

It all comes down to narrowing your pool of buyers. I would think a murder house would be up there with a main road, railway line, high voltage power lines etc. Plenty of people will still buy, but the pool of buyers is diminished.

For me personally, I just would want to know if a "recent" murder had been committed there. I would not live there.

The other scenarios you mentioned would not bother me at all, whether a marriage was unhappy etc, but the murder thing is (in my opinion) a bit different (for me anyway).

 

[Perp]

I liken it to being sad when I pass a cross on the side of the road. I think about the person who died there.

Oh, I see. Interesting.

I don't think I am alone, but obviously we are all different. ... For me personally, I just would want to know if a "recent" murder had been committed there. I would not live there.

The other scenarios you mentioned would not bother me at all, whether a marriage was unhappy etc, but the murder thing is (in my opinion) a bit different (for me anyway).

I'm sure you're not alone, but the fact that people's views vary so widely is precisely why I think making disclosure a legal requirement was erroneous.

What if the murder happened on the site, but that house was demolished and a new one built? Does the "bad vibe" attach to the land, or to the building?

Let me reiterate: I have no problem with people who don't want to live in a house where there's been a murder; that's entirely their prerogative. My problem is the Courts having found that vendors are not only required to make disclosures regarding the physical qualities of the property, but also to provide warranties with regard to the history of the property not being offensive, with "offensive" being undefined and subjective.