Ep. #27- Ghost Buster “Law” – Pt.2/2

Please note that all my writings are created by me & NOT by an AI writing intervention tool, however, I can not speak to my sources’-sources. If you use any information from this site have the curtesy to site.

Not so long ago, in 1967 but perhaps far away, depending on where you live in conjunction to 1 Laveta Place, New York, a Mr. And Mrs. Ackley purchased a 1890, three story 4, 628 square foot Victorian house, located at the end of a dead end with a wrap around porch and a view of the Hudson River. At the time of their purchase the home had 5 bedrooms, 3 ½ baths, more than enough room to accommodate their 4 children.

After a couple of decades of living in her home, Helen Ackley, listed the home for sale with a Broker by the name of Richard Ellis. In 1989, an offer of purchase plus a $32,500 deposit was issued for the home by a Jeffery and Patricia Stambovsky.

However, Stambovsky wanted to pull out of the $650,000 contract only after obtaining, so he claims, information from a persceptive contractor about certain types of happening at the home.

In an online blog entitled Hudson Valley Views, the same Broker, Richard Ellis writes “After about a year a buyer was interested and put a deposit down. Right before it closed, the seller [that would be Helen Ackley] asked us to advise the buyers of the visitors” [Mr. Ellis is referring to the ghost visitors in her home] which Mr. Richard claimed he did, unfortunately, there was no paper trail that could confirm that he or his office did or did not take the requested action on behalf of Helen Ackley. Ellis states after having that conversation, Stambovsky “still wanted to proceed and jokingly said they would call the “ghostbusters in,” referring to the popular movie of that time”.

So then to recap, Stambovsky wanted to proceed in the purchase of 1 Laveta Place…. until he didn’t. He filed action against Helen after he had given a signed contract with a down-payment. He claimed that he never received any information from her or, I am just guessing here, from Mr. Ellis regarding ghostly inhabitants and accused her of fraud via misrepresentation of the condition of the home (meaning the ghosts) which he believed would effect future resale value of the property.

Oh my, how times have changed! Just a quick detour here…

I remembered running across some stats a few years back from an online survey offered up by Realtor.ca which dealt with haunted homes and thankfully I was able to locate that article and then some .

Here is what their 2017 online survey revealed in regards to Haunted Homes from 1,000 respondents – I am assuming from the State, results – 33 % of those surveyed are open to living in a haunted house, 25 % might be and 42 percent are not open to the idea at all.

Their 2018 online survey revealed that Millennials were most likely to buy a haunted home if the seller sweetened the deal and for seniors – no deal would be good enough. If selling a haunted home, 34 percent of people would disclose everything to a prospective buyer while 22 percent would say nothing at all.

The latest survey by Realtor.ca that I could find is from 2020 which included more than 2,000 Americans and revealed that 13% believed they live in a haunted home and 54% had feels that their house was occupied prior to moving in. 56% of Americans who feel their house is haunted have not considered moving but 62 percent of those surveyed claimed that they would not live in a home that was whispered to be haunted.

BACK TO THE CASE.

Oh my, perhaps times have not changed in regards to feelings about living in a haunted home. Interestingly enough the Brokerage company that Helen had entrusted to forward her concerns to Mr. Stambovsky was never mentioned in the suit. Mr. Ellis, Helen’s broker wrote “…and while my firm and I were released from the case, the owner/seller was held liable” (Hudson Valley Views).

Did Hellen really forget to tell Mr Stambovsky? Well, perhaps she did omit to be transparent with him, since, according to Mr. Ellis she left that detail with him.

Still, it seems rather odd that she would purposely omit that information given the fact of her almost decade long transparency about her and her family’s encounters with the home’s paranormal activity which she re-laid not only to her broker, Mr. Ellis but also to different media outlets such as newspapers and a 1977 article in Readers Digest, which she penned entitled Our Haunted House on the Hudson. Speaking of which…

Interested in knowing what some of those encounters were?

So was I…and now I will read you excerpts of Hellen’s telling of her home’s haunted happenings that she claims occurred at her 1 Laveta Place, home.

Please visit my YouTube Channel with the handle @orbicletimespodcast.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/orbicle-times-exploring-the-seen-unseen-the-in/id1635627916

The court dismissed the complaint and ruled that Helen did not have a duty to disclose the haunted home’s happening due to New York’s “let the buyer beware” clause, meaning the onus is on the buyer, prior to the purchase of, to do their due diligence to make inquiries about the home, Justice Edward Lehner ruled in State Supreme Court in Manhattan that Mr. Stambovsky had no right to his $32, 500 down payment.

Stambovsky then appealed and in 1991 the case was heard by the New York Supreme Court which in the end held that “… a house, which the owner had previously advertised to the public as haunted by ghosts, legally was haunted for the purposes of an action for rescission brought by a subsequent purchaser of the house” Stambovsky v. Ackley – Wiki.

In other words, the house would become the first home to be declared legally haunted in the United States. A case that has become fondly or facetiously referred to as the GHOST BUSTER RULING.

The Stambovsky’s were paid back most of their down payment, Helen Ackley eventually moved. In 2003 Helen passed away.

The Stambovsky v. Ackley case has since been taught in some law schools and has been cited by other courts. According to Mr. Ellis, as a result of that ruling the real estate license law in the State of New York changed, putting onus on the broker to automatically inform buyers about ghosts if in fact the home owner disclosed that. Not sure if disclosure referred to in confidence. I don’t think that law is still active because in 1995 New York State passed the Stigmatized Property Law, which entails that Realtors do not have to tell buyers about paranormal activity or other types of issues such as murders, deaths or suicides, unless asked.

In some states, material defects OR patent defects are the only required disclosures. In others states the seller must disclose any emotional defects a.k.a. stigmatized properties.

In Canada, the laws regarding the disclosure of stigmatized properties vary by province. According to Mackesy Smye’s blog entitled; Stigmatized Property – Will I Need to Sell for Less? “In all provinces of Canada except Quebec, there are no laws requiring sellers to disclose property stigma. In the absence of any rules, the onus is on the buyer, “ In other words buyer beware!!!

Something I found interesting, given the topic in part 1 of this 2 part series, the home at 1 Laveta Place, New York was repainted by 2018 from red colour to a blue, but not just any blue, perhaps appropriately enough a haint/haunt blue.