Welcome to Steve Kitnick - Guest Contributor:

On July 26th, 2007 the Supreme Court of the State Of Nevada in Nelson v. Heer held that appellant Nelson "did not have a duty under NRS Chapter 113 to disclose the prior water damage or the possible presence of mold."  The reasons cited were as follows: " Under NRS 113.140, a seller of residential property is required to disclose to potential buyers only those defects of which the seller is aware.  NRS 113.100 (1) defines "defect" as "a condition that materially affect the value or use of residential property in an adverse manner."  Since appellant Nelson had repaired the prior water damage, it was no longer considered to be a "defect."  Moreover, since "she was not aware of the presence of any elevated amounts of mold," the Court held that "Nelson did not have a duty under NRS Chapter 113 to disclose the prior water damage or the possible presence of mold."

Question: Given the Supreme Court's Decision, why should a Seller disclose "previous moisture conditions and/or water damage" or "previous fungus or mold," if repairs have been performed and there no longer exists "a condition that materially affects the value or use of residential property in an adverse manner?"
 
Shouldn't we recommend to the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) a change in the SRPD - Form 547 to reflect the Supreme Court's Decision?

Steve Kitnick
Steven Kitnick Seminars, LLC
www.NevadaCE.com