For Sale or Rent..."Haunted House"
When it comes to real estate and haunted houses, there has been a debate on whether or not full-disclosure of paranormal activity should be required. According to a New York State court ruling in 1991 in the case of Stambovsky vs. Ackley, aka the “Ghostsbusters Ruling,” the seller of the property must disclose its ghostly inhabitants to all potential buyers. However, there is a small loophole in the law. If the seller never tells anyone about the haunting, then they are not required to tell a soul. In this case, the seller had definitely told of her encounters by writing about them in a series of newspaper articles. The 1890s home in Nyack was reputed to have the spirits hailing from the Revolutionary War-era, making their presence known by shaking the beds, slamming doors and walking the halls with phantom footsteps. Definitely activity that could disturb even the strongest of nerves. The state went a step further in 1995 by requiring that all deaths; especially murder and suicide also be disclosed. The “Ghostbuster Ruling” was not the first case about undisclosed paranormal activity to hit New York courts. The first documented case was heard in 1813 in Poughkeepsie. The ruling was featured in the September 1, 1813 edition of the Poughkeepsie Journal.
Curious Trial in Justice Court
Simer vs. Woolbridge
This case was tried in the Justice’s Court yesterday before a jury.
The plaintiff claimed a quarters rent of a house in Cherry Street, due the 1st inst. amounting to forty two dollars, or thereabouts.
The defense was that the house was haunted by ghosts, and, therefore untenantable by man.
The defendant proved that he hired and took possession of the house on the 1st of May, not knowing that it had the reputation of being inhabited by supernatural beings; that soon after a burning candle, placed on the mantlepiece, went out without any assignable cause! That on being lighted again, it went out in a similar way!! That a third attempt terminated in the same manner, with this addition that on the extinguishment of the candle, the witness, who was the person holding it was violently seized by the arm (by an invisible hand) and turned completely around!!! That the family being alarmed by such unaccountable events and also by finding in closets, about the house, and elsewhere, “dead men’s bones,” and understanding that the house had the reputation of being haunted before the family went in, and while unoccupied, the defendant had deserted the house because his family, not fond of having co-tenants of such a description, could not live in it in peace and without fear. It appears that the plaintiff before he hired the house to the defendant, knew the reputation of his house, but did not communicate it to the tenant. Some witnesses deposed, that while the house was unoccupied, they had several times observed a “blue flame” on the same mantlepiece, which, though it continued burning, communicated no light to the windows - that this attracted the attention of people passing, gathered numbers of spectators about the house and fixed upon it the reputation of a haunted house. The jury retired under the charge of the court, and returned with a verdict of ten dollars as a compensation to the plaintiff for the time he occupied his house before he was routed by the ghosts!!
Would you buy a reputed haunted house?
