Cross posted from outdoor board:

Brief synopsis: we were going to buy land to build on but it had an old gun range on it. Seller in the contract agreed to clean but then backed out of the agreement terms so we walked away. The land tested extremely high for lead (above epa recommended levels for a play area & yard, we have young children).

The seller stated that they just didn't want to sell it anymore & pulled it from the market. They recently listed the property again. We have no interest in purchasing it but feel that it is not right that they sell it without disclosing to potential buyers. Is this something they should have to disclose? We are in Texas FYI.

Did you find out there was lead via some kind of inspection? My understanding that the seller has to disclose any inspections back so many months. I am not in real estate, fyi.

There was an area on the property that was cleared and looked like it was a "high traffic area". Initially the agent didn't mention much about it but after some questioning we found out it was an old shooting range. When we signed the contract it was contingent on satisfactory cleaning of this area along with lead testing. We conducted lead testing on two separate occasions and it tested extremely high both times. The seller then decided he didn't want to clean the area so the contract fell apart and we walked. He stated he was just going to take it off the market because he didn't want to deal with it but since as relisted it.

sounds like he is trying to sneak it through

I thought so as well. My question is I don't feel that they will disclose this information to next potential buyer unless the right questions are asked. Since it is a know hazard at this point would you feel obligated to make sure it is disclosed and what would be the best way to go about it?

well...you may be right about them not disclosing. that's the seller's risk to take if he wants to subject himself to that risk. the buyer needs to do their own due diligence as well though.

if you are talking dangerous levels of lead, i would probably not be able to sit back. perhaps the first thing to do is to speak to your realtor and see if they could ask the next buyer's realtor (when another offer comes up) to do some intelligence gathering on what's been disclosed. not sure if that is legal or not (don't see why it wouldn't be).

you could also wait until a sale goes through and see what happens. you may feel uneasy but you don't know how the transaction will play out just yet.

Quote:

---

The seller then decided he didn't want to clean the area so the contract fell apart and we walked. He stated he was just going to take it off the market because he didn't want to deal with it but since as relisted it.

---

I suppose it is possible that he has gone back and remediated it properly, but I am suspicious that he has not. He made the dangerous levels of lead due to his actions, and he has been made aware (through not one but two tests). If he doesn't disclose that to prospective buyers (and I am not a realtor,) then it should be illegal if it isn't already. Those weren't just a little outside the guidelines of acceptable levels of lead, they were what five times the amount for soil? I know that most realtors probably focus on the lead based paint information because of dealing with homes, but the agent should know this is not allowable (level of contamination) and the seller ought to at least have to list it in the documentation. Just seems shady to me given the known hazards to human health and the amount you found. I think you are a good person to be concerned about this matter. Just because it is what is often done (by sellers) doesn't mean it is what should be done. He can either clean up his mess properly or let prospective buyers know and make that decision.

I don't think a seller's disclosure is required in a land sale.

The rules for disclosure in commercial transactions tend to be a lot different. The assumption is that the buyer should do their own due diligence. This is why they have lengthy "AS IS" clauses in the purchase and sale agreements.

I would think that if the seller marketed the property as being free from any environmental issues when they knew this was incorrect, that would be an issue. Otherwise, this is likely something where courts would have expected a buyer to do their own Phase I testing.

The standard form includes the following:

SELLER'S DISCLOSURES: Except as otherwise disclosed in this contract, Seller has no knowledge of the following: (1) any flooding of the Property which has had a material adverse effect on the use of the Property; (2) any pending or threatened litigation, condemnation, or special assessment affecting the Property; (3) any environmental hazards that materially and adversely affect the Property; (4) any dumpsite, landfill, or underground tanks or containers now or previously located on the Property; (5) any wetlands, as defined by federal or state law or regulation, affecting the Property; or (6) any threatened or endangered species or their habitat affecting the Property.

If I was the seller or the agent, I would be really worried about disclosure on this issue under #3. The fear is always that the original buyer, you, sends the reports to the new buyer after they are public due to closing and makes them aware of the lack of disclosure. It will not be pretty.