Q: After we bought our home in Shoreline last year we learned that the seller and the seller's agent knew that two houses were about to be built that would significantly block our view. Neither disclosed it to us.

In our estimation, the house would have sold for $200,000 less than we paid for it had it had the diminished view at that time. What recourse do we have against the seller and agent for not disclosing this information?

A: Sellers must disclose what they know about the condition of their home on "Form 17" that's given to the buyer. Agents also must disclose what they know, although they're not required to go looking for information.
But that's not the end of the story, says Seattle attorney Mark Schedler of Williams Kastner & Gibbs.

"The key question in disclosure cases is not what the seller or real estate agent knew; it's whether the information would be reasonably discernable through a diligent investigation," he explains. If it is, then courts will rule that it's the buyer's fault he or she is in a pickle.

That's why due diligence is so important.

"The courts have found that items that are readily ascertainable to the buyer include not only conditions that a home inspector would find, but things that one could learn by going to city hall and talking to the planning dept or talking to the neighbors," Schedler says.

Additionally, the standard real-estate sales forms used include a clause giving buyers the option of reviewing the neighborhood before making a final commitment to buy.

In the last two years, when sales were particularly brisk, some buyers sweetened their offers by waiving the right to a neighborhood review and sometimes even a physical inspection of the property.

A buyer who purchases without taking advantage of these safeguards can be in for two nasty surprises. They can discover, as you did, that they have a problem. And then they learn, as you have, that there's no recourse.