Property Condition Disclosure Law: Why Did States Mandate ‘Seller Tell All’?

Article

Abstract

Thirty-four US states have already enacted some form of seller’s Property Condition Disclosure Law. At a time when there is a movement in this direction nationally, this paper attempts to ascertain the factors that lead states to adopt disclosure law. Motivation for the study stems from the fact that not all states have yet adopted the law, and states that have enacted the law have done so in different years. The analytical structure employs hazard models, using a unique set of economic and institutional attributes for a panel of 50 US States spanning 21 years, from 1984 to 2004. The proportional hazard analysis of law adoption reveals that greater number of disciplinary actions tends to favor passage of the law. Greater broker supervision, implying generally higher awareness among real estate agents, seems to have a negative impact on the likelihood of a state adopting a Property Condition Disclosure Law.

Figure

Please query online caption

Keywords

Property condition disclosure Law adoption Hazard analysis Housing price index 

References

  1. Association of Real Estate Licensing Law Officials (ARELLO) Digest of Real Estate Licensing Laws and Current Issues (1985–2005).Google Scholar
  2. de Figueiredo Jr., Rui J. P., & Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2004). The Political Economy of State-Level Administrative Procedure Acts. The Journal of Law and Economics Vol. XLVII.Google Scholar
  3. Kennedy, P. (1998). A Guide to Econometrics. Fourth Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Kiefer, N. M. (1988). Economic duration data and hazard functions. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(2), 646–769.Google Scholar
  5. Lefcoe, G. (2004). Property condition disclosure forms: how realtors eased the transition from ‘Caveat Emptor’ to ‘Seller Tell All’. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, Summer.Google Scholar
  6. Moore, G. S., & Smolen, G. (2000). Real estate disclosure forms and information transfer. Real Estate Law Journal, 28, 319–326.Google Scholar
  7. Nanda, A. (2005). Property condition disclosure law: Does ‘Seller Tell All’ matter in property values? University of Connecticut, Dept. of Economics Working Paper Series, No. 2005-47.Google Scholar
  8. Olazabal, A. M. (2003). Redefining realtor relationships and responsibilities: The failure of state regulatory responses. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 40, 65–132.Google Scholar
  9. Pancak, K. A., Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. F. (1996). Residential disclosure laws: The further demise of Caveat Emptor. Real Estate Law Journal, 24, 291–332.Google Scholar
  10. Pancak, K. A., & Sirmans, C. F. (2006). The effect of agency reform on real estate service quality. Journal of Housing Research, 15(1), 41–54.Google Scholar
  11. Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross-Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Zumpano, L. V., & Johnson, K. H. (2003). Real estate broker liability and property condition disclosure. Real Estate Law Journal, 31, 285–302.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics GroupNational Association of Home Builders (NAHB)WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations