I am selling my parents house in CA. On the disclosure form there is a question as to whether anyone with HIV/AIDS has lived in the house during the last three years. They don't ask about TB or any other disease, just HIV/AIDS. I find this shocking.
Never heard of it. Sounds illegal under ADA.
What would make the difference anyway? That's very strange.
What R1 said. That is a bizarre question.
The more I think about it the more it seems strange. They are asking a question one would or could never know the answer to. What if you are trying to sell a rental property. How would you know what your tenants HIV status would be? OP, who precisely is asking this? The state or the listing agent?
That dose not sound right, I know a lot of real estate brokers and I am HIV positive and never heard of that. Sounds like some homophobe just tagged that on there.
You can ask anything you want I guess but I don't think you have to answer. That would be a violation of a persons medical rights, even if it was the person who passed away.
Maybe use that. Tell them:
"oh, by the way, your disclosure is in violation of HIPPA the federal law for medical privacy act. You might want to take that off your questionnaire."
And don't answer it. Because in theory, you would be breaking the law too if you told some bank or whoever about someone else medical condition without their permission.
[quote]you would be breaking the law too if you told some bank or whoever about someone else medical condition without their permission.
Exactly. Or the other side of the coin: Suppose you say no and it turns out unbeknownst to you that there was an poz person living there. Could you then be sued for providing false information?
OP if this is coming from the listing agent, you hold all the cards. I would find another agent and let the present one know why. They are off to a very bad start with this. If they are so unknowledgeable about the law, there maybe other areas where they could foul things up.
Most real estate brokers are not that educated. They got into the field because it is fast money without a college degree.
They are paranoid of loosing the sale. That disclosure might be someones idea of making sure the buyer who dose not like gays dose not come back at them. But that is fucked up thinking.
There are many other diseases they should be asking about if their intent in genuine. HIV is only spread with sexual contact, why are they only focused on that? As you noted TB and other things are spread by just breathing on someone.
What I find shocking is OP either made this up or fell for it.
actually, I just read the document more carefully. CA Civil Code 1710.2 protects the seller from failing to answer whether a person has died in the house during the last three years or whether a person with HIV/AIDS has lived in the house during the last three years. HOWEVER, if the buyer asks the seller directly, in writing, the seller is required to answer truthfully. Still seems funky.
Since the only people who have lived in the house during the last ten years are my parents, I have no problem answering the question in practice, but I still find it odd.
R9 - I don't see the part of the code that requires an answer to a direct question.
Sorry, that should probably read " protects the seller from failing to disclose". "Failing to answer" implies there was a question.
[quote] Section 17010.2 does not protect the seller from making a misrepresentation in response to a direct inquiry. If the Buyer has any concerns about whether a death occurred on the Property and the manner, location, details of timing of a death, the Buyer should direct any specific questions to the seller in writing.
Which seems to me to be wordy way of saying that if the seller asks a specific question in writing, I am required to answer it truthfully. Or I am required to not make a "misrepresentation".
The statement about HIV/AIDS is in (ii).
Even if a HIV lived there for decades and bled all over the place, there would be no residual risk, it's definitely not right to ask such a question.
[quote]I am required to answer it truthfully.
By saying, "I dont know" or "to the best of my knowledge, no." you are making a truthful statement. Maybe not in your particular case. But hell, I have no information about the people who lived in my home before me. It was a rental property so I doubt the last owner knew as well.
That's what I find so odd. Wouldn't TB be more of an issue, if anything was an issue? Legionnaires Disease? Small Pox?
[quote]Even if a HIV lived there for decades and bled all over the place, there would be no residual risk,
But what a mess to clean up! Oye.
If people are worried about someone with HIV/AIDS having lived in a house, I sure hope these people don't stay in hotels!
It sounds like an old rider tagged on when the other part about someone dying in a house was made.
Laws conflict all the time, if its a state law, it cant violate federal law, of privacy.
Even if you have nothing to hide, someone should say something about it or it will continue.
Even if you are not HIV pos, if you were to say yes about someone else, and the buyers pass, you could be unofficially labeled with AIDS just because you are linked to the house. Real estate brokers routinely black list cretin houses or people off the record.
This law needs to go, someone want to take up the fight?
AIDS is a weak virus, it's not like it lingers behind after people have moved.
I don't know about the CA Disclosure, but in my state the seller has the option of selecting/replying: No Representation.