Dana Riley purchased a home in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. After she purchased the home, she learned that the home had been the residence of a long-time drug dealer. She experienced many late-night visitors and often noticed cars parked outside near the street curb with the drivers and passengers studying the home. The former owner has been convicted of drug charges. Dana has become uncomfortable with the visitors and the surveillance. She just wants out of the house. Which ofthe following statements is true?

a.Dana has no grounds for rescinding her agreement.
b.The information about the drug dealer was material and should have been disclosed to her.
c.Withholding information about the former drug-dealer owner is not misrepresentation.
d.none of the above

The information about the former house ownership by a drug dealer is pertinent information that should have been disclosed to Dana considering the fact that it could hurt her physically, psychologically or less likely legally. If Dana decides to take an action against the seller of the house, she could be in a better position to win the case against the seller as there was no full disclosure as is required.

bogadu bogadu · Answer 2 · 2020-03-25T02:17:35+01:00

Answer:

b.The information about the drug dealer was material and should have been disclosed to her.

Explanation:

According to real estate laws, the owner of a property or property agents are under obligation to fully disclose information needed by the buyer to rightly negotiate the price of the property and it's suitability for him/her to move into. Things required in full disclose includes any defect on the house and emotional defects, that is, if crimes or murders have been committed in the property, dispute and boundary issues.

Based on this provision, the information about the drug dealer counts as emotional defect and should have been disclosed to Dana Riley.