The Estate's Blank Disclosure
Nora holds an exclusive right to sell a 1920s house in Syracuse for the Estate of Ruth K. The executor signs the listing and says, 'We're exempt from the property condition disclosure, so don't worry about it.' At the first showing Nora notices fresh paint over a large water stain on the basement ceiling and a sump pump with a new discharge line. A neighbor tells her the basement 'flooded twice last spring.' Buyer Marcus signs a contract on July 8 with no inspection contingency because he was told the house was 'fully updated.' Marcus asks Nora directly: 'Has the basement ever taken on water?'
1. Is the estate excused from delivering a Property Condition Disclosure Statement, and how should Nora handle the exemption claim?
Read the worked answer
New York's Property Condition Disclosure Act requires a seller of a one-to-four family residential property to deliver the statutory statement, but the statute lists exempt transfers - certain fiduciary and estate-related conveyances among them. Nora should not accept the executor's conclusion at face value.
Her steps:
- Identify which enumerated exemption is actually being claimed, and confirm it with the firm's counsel or the statute itself.
- Document the exemption and the reason in the transaction file, in writing.
- Explain to the executor that the 2024 amendments tightened the regime (the old option of paying a credit in lieu of a statement is gone), so a seller who should have delivered but did not faces actual-damages exposure.
Critically, exemption from the form is not exemption from fraud. Even an exempt seller may not actively conceal a known defect, and Nora's own duties as a licensee are unaffected.
2. How should Nora answer Marcus's question?
Read the worked answer
Nora must separate three categories and speak only to what she can support:
- Firsthand observation. She saw fresh paint over a water stain and a newly installed sump discharge. Those are material facts and she should describe them plainly: 'I observed what appears to be a repaired water stain and a new sump line.'
- Third-party report. The neighbor's statement that the basement flooded twice is unverified hearsay. She should tell Marcus what she was told, attribute it, and say she has not confirmed it - then raise it with the seller.
- Speculation. She must not say 'it's probably fine' or 'it's just an old basement.' Guessing is where licensees get sued.
What she cannot do is answer 'no' or 'I have no knowledge,' which would be a misrepresentation by omission. She should also tell the executor that a direct question has been asked and recommend a written response, and recommend Marcus bring an inspector and a basement specialist.
3. Marcus closes and later finds water damage. What claims and defenses arise, and does the missing inspection contingency matter?
Read the worked answer
Claims. New York resale remains largely a caveat-emptor state, so Marcus's theories are narrow but real: fraudulent concealment (the fresh paint over the stain is the strongest fact), negligent or intentional misrepresentation by the seller or the agent, and, if a disclosure statement was in fact required, statutory liability for a knowing false answer.
Defenses. The seller will argue caveat emptor, that Marcus bought 'as-is,' that water in a 1920s basement is patent and obvious, and that any misstatement about being 'fully updated' was puffery.
The inspection contingency. Waiving it does not waive fraud - a buyer cannot be said to have relied on his own inspection when the defect was actively painted over. But it does weaken the reliance argument and cuts damages, because a reasonable buyer would have looked. Marcus's best evidence is the timing of the paint and the sump work relative to the listing.
Nora's exposure is separate: whether she conveyed the material facts she knew. Her file notes from the first showing are now the key document.