Imagine this scenario: Your spouse dies, so you decide to start a new life. To facilitate this plan, you pack up your kids and all your belongings, hop in the U-Haul and travel cross country to a lazy PA town where your future, close relatives and a beautiful home await you.
Once settled into the house you meticulously chose out of the many listings considered, you receive some news from a neighbor that turns your life upside down in an instant.
This is what happened to Janet Milliken, who at 59, decided to start anew as she and her two children made the move from California to Thornton, Pa.
Janet settled on a house which she paid $610,000.00 for in 2007, but it was just a few weeks later that a neighbor alerted her to the grizzly history associated with her dream house. A history of suicide, a history of murder…..
Lets check in with ABC News for more on this strange story:
Homebuyer Appeals to Pa. Supreme Court on Her Home’s Bloody Past
A Pennsylvania woman has appealed to the state Supreme Court in her suit against a home seller and real estate agent who failed to disclose that a murder-suicide had taken place in the home she purchased.
When Janet Milliken, 59, moved from California after her husband died, she had hoped to start a new life with her two teenage children in Pennsylvania near her family.
She bought a home in Thornton, Pa., for $610,000 in June 2007. She learned a few weeks after she moved in from a next-door neighbor that a murder-suicide had occurred the year before in her home.
She sued the seller and the real estate agent for fraud and misrepresentation, saying they made a “deliberate choice not to disclose the home’s recent past,” according to a court document.
The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, saying state law does not require agents to disclose such events.
Then in December 2012, a panel of the state appeals court affirmed that decision, though with a nearly split decision.
The matter dates back to Feb. 11. 2006, when a previous homeowner, Konstantinos Koumboulis, allegedly shot and killed his wife, then shot himself in the master bedroom.
Joseph and Kathleen Jacono had bought the home Oct. 31, 2006, knowing of the murder-suicide, for $450,000. They later sold it to Milliken, who wants the transaction rescinded and her money back.
Filing a petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania last week with the hope of arguing the case further, the attorney for Milliken, Tim Rayne, said they “hope to have Pennsylvania recognize that having a horrific event occur within a property can be just as damaging and troubling to a future homeowner as a physical defect, or perhaps even more so.”
“Having a gunshot murder-suicide committed within the home is much more devastating than having a small leak concealed by the previous homeowner,” Rayne said. “Physical defects can be fixed. Troubling events that could and did occur in this home could never go away.”
Rayne said sellers should be required to disclose troubling events “at least for some period of time.”
Abraham Reich, the attorney for the Jaconos and their agent with Re/Max, said, “The majority, en banc [full-court] opinion of the Superior Court was well reasoned and consistent with years of industry practice in Pennsylvania.
“While the issue is interesting, the number of times it comes up does not warrant Supreme Court review,” Reich said. “The Superior Court opinion provides guidance for any real estate transaction in the future and puts to rest the uncertainty of whether a seller has a duty to disclose a murder-suicide or any other type ‘psychological damage.’ In my opinion, the result is a good one.”
Rayne said Milliken, 59, was “disturbed” when she learned of her home’s history from a neighbor. “As she was struggling what and if to tell the kids,” he said, her children’s friends visited the home for Halloween and told the children about the murder-suicide.
“They were very upset upon learning about it and disturbed about the whole situation,” Rayne said.
“They were dealing with the death of a father and husband and wanted to move closer to family, and then this happened to them,” he said. “It was a tragedy all around.”
Rayne said Milliken and her children are still living in the home. He said they would prefer to move out of the home but can’t afford to do so without selling it.
“They feel that if they sold it, through good conscience they would have to disclose,” Rayne said, “so it would negatively impact the value.”
Would you live in such a house knowing it’s past?
While PA doesn’t require it, many states have adopted full disclosure policies regarding real estate, although, you have to wonder about a seller who purposely withholds information such as a prior tragedy. Personally, I couldn’t live with myself for being so unscrupulous.
Does this woman have a case? As much as I feel for her and her situation, I’d say probably not. When buying a house, you are making a major investment, likely the biggest of your life. That being said, it’s important to cover every aspect possible.
Finally, the advice I would give to people considering their next major purchase is simple:
Caveat emptor! Which means in essence, “don’t be a sucker!”
Thanks again to ABC News for quoted material.
Associated Content:
GT: Submitted Story: Nan’s Old House
GT: Christopher Lutz: Growing Up In The ‘Amityville Horror House’
GT: Would You Live In A ‘Murder House’?
