Ghosts

HungryJoe

Do you believe in ghosts? The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court does.

Jeffrey Stambovsky bought a house from Helen Ackley. Only later did he realize that Ms. Ackley had publicized the house as being haunted. Mr. Stambovsky didn't like the idea of owning a haunted house and sought a recission of the sale in the New York Supreme Court. That Court found that Ms. Ackley didn't have a duty to disclose the haunting. The Appellate Division disagreed and, since Ms. Ackley had publicized the haunting so widely, estopped her from denying that the house was haunted. Notice that the Court held that the house is haunted as a matter of law.

This case came out in my first year of law school and I've always enjoyed it. Notice the link at the bottom of the page. It goes back to a page of silly cases that includes U.S. v. Satan, 54 F.R.D. 282, where the Court dismissed a claim against Satan for want of jurisdiction. Pretty funny.

Apreche

From your description it doesn't sound to me like the court cares whether there were actual ghosts or not. It also doesn't seem as if it actually matters whether there are ghosts or not. What matters is that someone was publicizing claims about something they sold and that they didn't make those claims known to the purchaser.

Imagine if I had a computer that I built on Newegg. Then I sold the computer to somebody. Without the purchaser knowing, I widely proclaimed that the computer previously belonged to a terrorist. It is clear that it doesn't matter if the computer actually belonged to anybody. What matters is that I'm causing someone a lot of trouble by widely publicizing information which may or may not be true. In most cases this isn't criminal, but they have every right to try and sue me for it.

I highly doubt if there were an actual case where it mattered if ghosts were real that a court would say they definitely were.

HungryJoe

Maybe I should have used the green font. That was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. You're right about what was important in the analysis.

Do, however, notice that the Court held that, as a matter of law, that the house is haunted. Therefore, as far as the Court is concerned, the house is definitely haunted.

HMTKSteve

"As a matter of law" != "fact"

HungryJoe

"As a matter of law" != "fact"

That's true. The truth in court is not always the truth of the real world. It would be extremely difficult to prove it as a matter of fact.

But - do you know of any more well proven haunted house? This house is recognized to be haunted by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. How many houses have that credibility?

Apreche

This one.

HungryJoe

Pretty.

What did you think of U.S. v. Satan?

Rym

I remember that, when my family was trying to sell our house in Detroit, we discovered that Michigan law requires that any hauntings in property for sale must be disclosed to potential buyers.

Apreche

I remember that, when my family was trying to sell our house in Detroit, we discovered that Michigan law requires that any hauntings in property for sale must be disclosed to potential buyers.

Wait a minute. Hauntings are all fake. Fake hauntings must be disclosed. Can you really lose a case where you don't disclose a haunting that never happened? What if someone makes up a story that all houses in a neighborhood are haunted. Perhaps all houses in an entire town?

I think I have a better way to interpret this law.

Michigan, absolutely the best state to move to today! Discounts on new houses if you mention the secret word, ghost. Come on down!

HungryJoe

If they discount their real estate much more, it would be free.

Rym

If they discount theirreal estatemuch more, it would be free.

I seriously considered buying some property on the cheap just to own it. That land will come around to be valuable again, and I could fairly easily hire someone to fix it up and maintain it in the meantime.

As for the Michigan thing, you had to prove that the previous owners knew and chose not to disclose. Thus, all you have to do is not go around telling people your house is "haunted" and you're in the clear ^_~

Apreche

As for the Michigan thing, you had to prove that the previous owners knew and chose not to disclose. Thus, all you have to do is not go around telling people your house is "haunted" and you're in the clear ^_~

Ha Ha! So it's basically an idiot tax. If you are stupid enough to believe your house is haunted, and you tell people, then you decrease the value of your own home! Actually sounds like a good law when you think about it this way.