The Ohio Supreme Court has recently come down with a decision delineating the boundaries of a seller's duty when it comes to residential property disclosures. In a significant ruling, the court unanimously held that a functioning sewer line does not constitute a "material defect" and thus is not required to be listed on the property disclosure form.
The case in question revolved around a property sold by Keith Ashmus, with Thomas and Melissa Coughlin later backing out of the purchase. Despite the property boasting a working sewer line, the Coughlins deemed its undisclosed presence a deceptive move. However, as Court News Ohio reports, Justice R. Patrick DeWine argued that a seller must disclose known flaws that signify "some sort of inadequacy or flaw," and wrote for the court, "But few speakers would say that a sewer line was defective if it worked perfectly, but was in an inconvenient location."
The ruling thus reverses the decision made by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court's judgment in favor of Ashmus. DeWine elaborated, indicating that the intent behind such disclosure forms is to inform potential buyers of defects that could affect the property’s use or value, not to catalog all extant elements of the property's infrastructure that function properly, even if they may be inconveniently situated.
The case has reset expectations and norms about property disclosures in Ohio, with potential ripple effects for real estate transactions across the state. Sending the previous judgment by the appeals court for reversal, the issue was remanded back to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to restore the original verdict for Ashmus, as detailed in the initial findings from the trial court. The Supreme Court's decision stands as a noteworthy precedent, clarifying that the disclosure of a non-defective but inconveniently located sewer line is not under the seller's obligations.
