Blog

Between 2009 and 2020, Josh published more than 10,000 blog posts. Here, you can access his blog archives.

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009

So maybe selling a “haunted” house does make it more valuable?

December 27th, 2013

Remember Stambovsky v. Ackley? That’s the case where a New York court held that a house being “haunted” was a latent defect that the seller had a duty to disclose. One the arguments the judge relied on, in his farcical opinion, was that a haunted house was less valuable. I often ask my students if anyone would purchase a haunted house. Most say they wouldn’t care. But a few are adamant and would not. And there’s always one or two that would want to buy the house! Like Beetlejuice or something.

Zillow, which is apparently also a contributor to Forbes, writes about a guy in Pennsylvania who listed a house as “slightly haunted.”

haunted-house

slightly-haunted-home-682x1024And wouldn’t you know it. People were interested!

“I went back and forth,” Gregory Leeson says when asked about listing hisDunmore, PA home as “slightly haunted” on real estate website ZillowZ -3.69%. “I thought I might as well. I didn’t think it would generate this much interest.”

But since uploading his for sale by owner listing on Sunday, Leeson has received multiple offers and interest from buyers as well as ghost hunters across the country. The home has also ignited a growing discussion on Twitter, with many sharing their own haunted home stories:

Leeson’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek description of his home, which is listed for $144,000, begins by pointing out typical features — 4 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms — before delving into the property’s more unusual characteristics:

“Slightly haunted. Nothing serious though,” he writes in the listing. “The sounds of phantom footsteps. A strange knocking sound followed by a very quiet (hardly noticeable, even) scream.”

Pennslyvania, unlike New York does not require the disclosure of”psychological” defects.

“The courts in Pennsylvania have limited the defects that must be disclosed to impairments that are structural, legal or hazardous in nature,” he said. “Knowledge of psychological impairments such as deaths, murders and haunted houses are not required … however some legal experts recommend sellers disclose them anyway just to be safe.”

DeFazio recommends full disclosure, as leaving out potentially alarming information about a home can result in a drawn-out lawsuit, as seen in the case of Janet Milliken, a Pennsylvania resident who sued the seller and listing agent of her home for not disclosing a murder-suicide that took place there a year before she bought it. And in some cases, such as a home where a famous person died, DeFazio says full disclosure can have a positive effect on resale value.

But with haunted houses, DeFazio says it’s a gray area.

“Even if the court says yes [a haunting] is a material defect, you have to prove it actually exists,” he said.
“And how are you going to prove it? Call Ghostbusters?”

And the guy was trying to avoid law suits!

DeFazio suspects Leeson disclosed the home as haunted out of an abundance of caution to get ahead of a lawsuit that would likely never happen — or just to be funny.

Leeson says it was more the latter and that he had no knowledge of the state’s disclosure laws when he posted the listing.

“The way I worded it – I was trying to keep it light,” he said. “I don’t know the laws here, but I thought ‘better safe than sorry.’”

Anyway, here is some more information about the house in Stambovsky.

The New York Times and Atlas Obscura have good articles about the Haunted House.

The Ghost of Nyack | Atlas Obscura

The Times writes:

The phones have been ringing at real-estate offices in Rockland County. A patient in a psychiatric hospital called. So did a para-psychologist from Florida. And so did the Amazing Kreskin, all the way from his hotel room in Atlantic City.

That turreted turn-of-the-century Victorian house in Nyack is back on the market – the one that the owner says has not one, not two, but three ghosts. The one that was the subject of a court ruling last week.

There was nothing creepy about Justice Edward H. Lehner’s decision in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. He found that a would-be buyer, Jeffrey M. Stambovsky, could not back out of a $650,000 contract on the three-story clapboard house without losing his $32,500 down payment on it.

Mr. Stambovsky, who acknowledges that the contract expired after he skipped a scheduled closing last fall, had argued that no one warned him about any preternatural residents who, presumably, would not comply with ordinary eviction orders.

As for whether he will see the ghosts in Nyack – in 22 years, the owner, Helen V. Ackley, has seen only one.

”He was sitting in midair, watching me paint the ceiling in the living room, rocking and back forth,” she said. ”I was on an 8-foot stepladder. I asked if he approved of what we were doing to the house, if the colors were to his liking. He smiled and he nodded his head.”

Mrs. Ackley said one of the other ghosts would waltz into her daughter’s bedroom. ”We don’t know whether or not she was the one who woke the children up by shaking the bed,” she said.

Ghost No. 3 was a Navy lieutenant during the American Revolution. ”My son saw him eyeball to eyeball outside the basement door,” Mrs. Ackley said.

Atlas Obscura writes:

During the 1960s, the 7,000 residents of the tiny village knew that the 5,000 square foot house was haunted, but nobody bothered to tell the Ackley couple before they decided to move in.

Helen and George Ackley, who lived in the home for more than 20 years, reported that they had seen a ghost in the house on at least one occasion and that they would be awoken every morning by a shaking bed, but otherwise lived in peace with whatever spirits resided in their home. When they decided to move and sold the house in 1990, they didn’t bother to tell the new buyers about the ghost problem.

With $32,500 in escrow, Jeffrey and Patrice Stambovsky backed out of the contract when they learned that the house was haunted. When the Ackleys refused to refund the deposit, the Stambovskys sued, leading to what would come to be known as the “Ghostbusters” ruling. The New York Appellate court ruled that, because a routine home inspection would never uncover it, sellers must disclose that a house is haunted to potential buyers.

Here is a Google Map of the haunted house:


View Larger Map

H/T PropertyProf Blog

Klein on why young, healthy people just shouldn’t pay the mandate?

December 27th, 2013

Mandate? I thought it was a tax? Anyway, Ezra Klein offers advice to a 26-year-old who would rather pay the cheap penalty than expensive healthcare.

3. Gibson is latching onto something very real in the law: The mandate is great deal. He doesn’t even mention the best part: If he pays the mandate and then he does get sick, he can still buy insurance at the same price as when he was healthy when the next open enrollment period rolls around! Paying the mandate is basically purchasing an option to buy health insurance at a reasonable rate in the future, even if you get sick between now and then.

4. So why would anyone not pay the mandate? A few reasons. First, people actually want health insurance. After all, there’s no individual mandate right now, but lots of people pay lots of money to buy insurance, even when that insurance has high deductibles. Second, the mandate gets pretty steep, pretty quick. By 2016, it’s 2.5 percent of income over the tax filing threshold ($10,000 for an individual, $20,000 for a family). So if you’re making $40,000, that’s $750 you’re spending — and you’re paying it knowing that if you get sick, you have no protection. Third, people tend to follow the rules.

5. And then, of course, there’s the big reason: You might get sick! Gibson’s argument is that he’s young and healthy. The most he’s ever spent on health care is $6,000 for a back surgery in 2011. That’s great! But as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Sometimes you get hit by a bus, or you find a lump, or your wife gets pregnant. And then what? You’ll wait 10 months for the next open enrollment period? Most people don’t buy insurance because they expect to need it. They buy insurance in case they need it.

6. We have some evidence on this. Paying mandate is also cheaper than buying insurance in Massachusetts, but almost no one pays it.

 

Google Made Rap Genius Disappear

December 27th, 2013

I have often commented that the power of Google is to make things disappear. No, not literally disappear in the Godfather sense. But by changing algorithms to bury someone on page 2349 of search results, they may as well be gone.

Google made RapGenius.com vanish from the tubes because of their SEO spamming. They are unsearchable.

If you search for Rap Genius on Google right now, the homepage for the startup is conspicuously absent from the first page of search results. You won’t find it on the second, third, or fourth page either. Instead what you’ll see on the first page of results are stories about how Rap Genius got smote by Google, links to their Twitter and Facebook and, at least for me, a link to this Billboard article about “How Rap Genius Won the SEO Game.”

 More importantly, links to the Rap Genius pages for popular songs, which would often pop up as the top result, got similarly smacked down.

Thing about that for a moment, in light of my post the other day about Twitter (accidentally) disappearing tweets about DuckDynasty. These mediums exercise great power to control what we see and don’t see.

Update: Some more commentary.

But it’s the idea that I’m passionate about. Or at least want to protect, like the Freedom of Speech in America.

The Internet is a changing place. It’s scary that Google can do so much to such a great Web resource. Even though the world needs Google, the world needs Rap Genius too. And if Google is dedicated to reciprocally providing its users with what they need, then they’ll bring back Rap Genius. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.

Kennedy, Windsor, Federalism, and SSM in Utah

December 27th, 2013

For the past year or so I’ve been working on article about Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence that focuses on how he merges together due process (conduct), equal protection (status), and federalism (states conferring dignity) into a single standard of structural constitutional review. I think this theory helps explain his jurisprudence from Casey to Romer to Lawrence to Windsor. I held off finishing the paper, because I wanted to see what would happen in Bond, which will have huge doses of structure and federalism in it.

But recent events in Utah, and the rapidity with which this issue comes before the Court, will probably give me an opportunity to work in these cases.

Let me make a prediction that will probably be wrong. In Lawrence, AMK cited the fact that so many states decriminalized sodomy as a rationale to strike down the Texas law. There, states striking down these laws was conferring a form of dignity that informs the federal constitutional question. In Windsor, AMK cited the (not so many at the time) states that had given gays the right to marry. There, states granting this right were conferring a form of dignity that informs the federal constitutional question.

Since Windsor, there has been a race of states granting rights to SSM, mostly through the elected branches, but most recently in Utah, and hinted at in Ohio. This is just the kind of thing for AMK to cite to show that states, through his odd form of reverse federalism, are conferring the right of gay marriage should inform the federal constitutional right to gay marriage.

Of course this argument can be coupled with some stuff about due process and/or equal protection, really the same thing to AMK (status and conduct are two sides of the same coin). In any event, there is no need to say whether gay marriage is a fundamental right, or if strict scrutiny applies. He didn’t need to do so in Lawrence or Windsor. No need here. It will be federalism that does the heavy lifting.

Just a terrible prediction. But if it’s right, this will make my article pop.

Google – Ultimate Personal Assistant

December 27th, 2013

In my writings, I have often referred to Google as a personalized concierge that knows what you want before you do. TechCrunch has a piece alluding to this technology, titled “Google Wants To Build The Ultimate Personal Assistant.” Google’s Engineering Director offers a preview of things to come:

Here’s the gist of it: Google knows our expectations of what a search engine should be able to do is quickly changing. The old “ten blue links” search results page is quickly going away for something far smarter that, according to Huffman, will resemble a personal assistant more than the search tool Google that launched over fifteen years ago. Indeed, that’s what Huffman considers Google’s goal: creating the ultimate personal assistant. The next generation of search, he said, is all about making “all your tasks as you go through the day simpler and quicker.”

That interaction with Google will be in the form of a back-and-forth conversation, something the company has been working on for a while now. Thanks to its Knowledge Graph, Google has become significantly better at understanding its users intends and it is already able to use voice recognition for at least a limited amount of conversation that is able to work with pronouns (and that’s really the first step in making conversations with computers seem natural). It’s not exactly the Star Trek computer, but it’s a clear first step in the direction Google is taking.

The ultimate assistant, however, needs to be able to do more than just carry on a conversation, though, Huffman stressed. It also needs to be proactive and that’s where Google Now comes in. By knowing about your habits, travel bookings, OpenTable reservations and everything else that can be found by sleuthing through your Gmail inbox, Google Now is already pretty useful