Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW March Newsletter: You Just Purchased a Haunted House! Can You Sue and Get Some Relief?

This is the Los Angeles mansion used in the first season of the television series American Horror Story. The new owners are not amused.

Are you troubled by strange noises in the middle of the night?
Do you experience feelings of dread in your basement or attic?
Have you or a member of your family ever seen a 
spook, specter, or ghost?
 ----Ghostbusters. Dir. Ivan Reitman. Perf. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver. Columbia Pictures, 1984. Film.

The new owners of the Rosenheim Mansion in Los Angeles, CA, are suing the sellers and their real estate agent for $3 million for failure to disclose several problems with the house, including the fact that it's haunted by two ghosts. In addition, the house was the focus of American Horror Story - Murder House, a Fox television series of the horror genre (its quality varies), and fans of the show stop by for photos and have allegedly tried to break-in (undoubtedly looking for the ghosts). On a more earthly plane, the new owners also allege the defendants' failure to disclose leaks, water damage, and mold.

For our discussion, let's assume that the Mansion is located here in Michigan. (After all, there are accounts of Grand Rapids Heritage Hill homes being haunted!) So how might a Michigan court evaluate the merits of this lawsuit?

We'll start with the requirement that the Michigan Seller Disclosure Act requires sellers of a Michigan home to disclose a great deal about the condition of the property to a buyer or their real estate agent. The required disclosure includes known "settling, flooding, drainage, structural, or grading problems." But the disclosure statement contains first, a disclaimer that the sellers haven't "conducted any inspection of generally inaccessible areas such as the foundation or the roof," and second, the warning that the "BUYER SHOULD OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY TO MORE FULLY DETERMINE THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. THESE INSPECTIONS SHOULD TAKE INDOOR AIR AND WATER QUALITY INTO ACCOUNT, AS WELL AS ANY EVIDENCE OF UNUSUALLY HIGH LEVELS OF POTENTIAL ALLERGENS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, HOUSEHOLD MOLD, MILDEW AND BACTERIA." (Two flaws: the phrase "but not limited to" is superfluous, and there should be a comma after "MILDEW.")

The disclosure form doesn't address whether the seller has seen ghosts in the house (anybody here seen a ghost?) or whether the house has been featured in a horror movie or macabre television series. Or if so, whether that use has caused a fan frenzy (or a ghostly infestation) that disturbs the homeowners' possession of the property.

The honest and accurate completion of the Michigan disclosure form would hurt a buyer's lawsuit for hidden water damage and mold. A Michigan buyer should have paid to test the indoor air quality and had the seller remediate any problems before the sale. 

About an infestation of rowdy spirits, any judge or jury would be rightfully skeptical. Plaintiffs would likely have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that first, ghosts exist; second, that they physically manifested in the home; and third, that the manifestation caused tangible damage or bodily harm for which the seller/defendants are liable. Good luck with that, even though we live in a reality that we actively generate.

Buyer's best chance of recovery is on the allegation that the featuring of the house in a horror show created a fan frenzy amounting to a nuisance. But apparently the seller/defendants in the California case signed a statement that there were no neighborhood nuisances to disclose. (The Michigan disclosure form doesn't mention a nuisance or what condition of the property qualifies as one.)

The private nuisance tort connected with real estate has been around for a long time. (For you non-lawyers a tort is simply a civil wrong.Examples include your neighbor keeping dogs that bark so much that you can't sleep, or if your neighbor decides to stay up at night pounding a home improvement into existence; these activities would interfere with the use and enjoyment of your property. So if the sellers in our case knew about - but failed to disclose - multiple incidents of fans trespassing on the property to take selfies or trying to break into the home, plaintiff buyers might well prevail on that legal theory. 

Concerning damages (disregarding water damage and mold that sellers should have disclosed or buyers tested for), $3 million may be wishful thinking. Fan frenzy usually dies out over time. And there are cases where haunted-house owners have sold their properties above market price to buyers hoping to experience the paranormal! 

So who you gonna call if your house is haunted? The Ghostbusters, a trial lawyer, or a reality-TV network? I suggest the latter.  
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is and my website is And my email address is Thanks!


Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Is There a Moral Imperative to Plain English? Part 1 - Examples

"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." 

Thus begins Stephen King's epic story of the gunslinger, Roland Deschain, and the popular Dark Tower series of novels describing his adventures. But King didn't have to write this sentence that way; he could have consulted with the typical lawyer, politician, or company PR department first. Had he done so, the sentence may have appeared so:

"The bad hombre who was dressed mostly in dark clothing and running fast across an arid land was pursued by a multi-armed, extremely dangerous, and notorious vigilante."
The difference in these two sentences is clear. King's concise short sentence creates an image that grabs the reader's attention and raises provocative questions. Who is the man in black? Who is the gunslinger? Why is he after the man in black? But the Bizarro World Stephen King sentence - with its ethnic slur, passive voice, ambiguity, suppositions, and superfluous adjectives …

The BUSKLAW July Newsletter: Horsing Around with Non-Compete Clauses

Non-compete provisions are part and parcel of many employment agreements. But these provisions must be carefully drafted to be enforceable. There are three sure-fire ways to have a court invalidate your non-compete clause without much judicial cogitation:
Failure to provide a reasonable duration for the clause;Failure to restrict the operation of the clause to a reasonable geographic area; andFailure to establish a protectable business interest as the subject of the clause.The first point is easy to grasp. In Michigan, you are on solid legal ground if the duration of your non-compete clause doesn't exceed one year. And you are probably okay if you add a year to that. But you're walking on quicksand if your non-compete provision lasts longer than two years. 
The second point is a bit more complicated. Courts don't like to enforce a non-compete clause if its geographical scope is too wide. For example, if I'm in the packaged ice business and sell my product mostly to retai…

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: Is Your Website Compliant with the European Union's GDPR?

Effective 25 May 2018, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation goes into effect. The GDPR is a big deal and quite complicated. There are 99 articles and 173 recitals defining the privacy rights of individuals and data controllers’ and data processors’ obligations. 

Are you a U.S.-baseddata controller or data processor subject to the GDPR? You are a “data controller” if you, alone or jointly with others, determine the purpose and means of “processing” personal data of EU individual customers or businesses. The threshold is that you offer goods or services to customers or businesses in the EU (including the UK, despite Brexit) and collect their personal data. But even if you don’t sell goods or services to EU customers but engage in marketing or monitoring activities involving EU individuals’ personal data, you are covered by the GDPR.

You are a data processorif you “process” personal data on behalf of a “data controller,” i.e., a data controller contracts with you to process pers…