The internet does have some very good sources. It is how they are sought after and checked to make sure it is accurate. Not all sites have good information, that is why research is a key factor on accuracy. So, just check the records and make sure the data is clear and what it should be. True numbers do not lie.

Thanks but I actually coach other agents and offices on business negotiations and client engament/management/marketing and a whole lot of other topics. Been doing this prior to it being popular as it is now. Over 20 years.

The actual area herein is the forum but what is discussed is left open to the issues and responses. Thus, the response types may be classified accordingly. If you are teaching pre-licensing courses, I hope you cover the honesty of disclosures. I cannot recall actionable legal cases (precedent case law), lawsuits and license revocations where too much disclosure was made to a client in a real estate transaction. However, most people will fall on short grounds when they do not disclose enough relevant details which are material to the contract. If anyone is practicing any type of disclosure format based on Black's Law Dictionary, I say run the other way. Their information is super limited and ignores the Civil Procedures, Constitutional Law, Case Law as well as Criminal Proceedings and many other areas, where one may hit an ankle on if they do not disclose relevant information to the contract. Again, the key is to tell the truth, discuss the factors that can make or break a contract. This is not an opinion, but a fact. This is not being loose lipped. Most lawsuits happen because someone tried to save their deal and had sealed lips. If you have the choice, then tell the truth. Anything less is not acceptable if it means to misleading someone intentionally or negligently, or hide a material fact to the contract (fraudulent action can arise out of this). This is true not just in the States, but outside the US as well. Laws do contradict each other in many cases, and as I had stated earlier, one must look at the totality of the circumstances to make logical conclusions. There is no need to drop one's brain on the floor and not use it just because they think a dictionary had the answer to their question. Most issues are due to lack of disclosures not due to too much. Consult not just one attorney but several. It is no defense in any court that one followed a bad legal advice. So ... disclose that material fact... And that is a fact.

Thank you. Here is another quick tip in managing your business: When artificially created stupidity happens around you (meaning- dumb things happen where people should know what to do but they haven't or did it incorrectly, or forgot to tell you important issues that they normally would report to you), go out and take a breath and go to Starbucks. Sanity helps :-)

Well, since I posted the article and you are debating the validity of what I stated, a concrete example would be nice. I understand if you do not have one, because it would be very difficult to create one, unless you do have a specific example. Ironically, my statements are not as general as one may believe. Most people believe what is under their license requirements is only (or mostly) what they need to adhere to, or follow. Some believe if they follow those rules exactly, they are ok. Sadly, that is not the entirety. The rules under licenses are many times not enough to abide by rules of the law. Just because under a license a rule may not have been violated, it does not mean the law was kept. In your example you had given is a wonderful issue. So, technically, you did have one that was specific enough to comment on. I appreciate it. Now, your example of Maine and no duty to disclose stigmatized property is only a part of the issue. However, stigmatism as you know but I will define for the rest of the readers, indicates "to characterize or brand as disgraceful or ignominious", is requested not to be disclosed by your sellers, does not mean necessarily that you are not obligated to disclose to a buyer, as long as it is a material part of their contract. The key is MATERIAL part of their contract. Thus, if a client, a buyer, tells you that they are looking specifically at a property that is not stigmatized, then you have to reveal “it”. Of course, the issue on stigmatism also goes on to what one means specifically about it, and the exact term and meeting of the minds on the details of stigmatized property, what "it" is that needs disclosure. Where one may think it is stigmatized because of a certain neighbor who does not cut their lawn next door or to someone else who considers that a stigmatized property is one that is in violent gang area, clearly indicates that the responses will be different for disclosure purposes. So, you might want to clarify what your seller means and what your buyer does. Ultimately what is the major issue and what each client wants to "hide" or "wants to know" is the key and what the MATERIAL part of that contract is. I emphasized the word “material” because that is such a key term. If that information goes to a detail that is so important to the client that it would make them change their mind, had they know about that issue, is a material part. If that issue can make or break a contract, a disclosure is necessary, or the law may be violated. The client usually will come back and say “… had they know about that, they would have done this, or done that…”. So one buyer may not care that the stigmatized property is characterized as such because of the neighbor not cutting the lawn next door, then if your seller asks you not to disclose that information, you do not have to. It is meaningful to your seller but not to your buyer. However, primarily, when you take the listing, you must tell your client that you do have to be honest, and if a buyer has a specific request about the information regarding their home that is a material information to the buyer, and that is what your seller wants to hide, not disclose, not mentions, cover up, etc., etc., then you will not be able to do that. Also, offering information that you are instructed not to reveal might be a problem if it does go to the material part of that contract. Just because your client tells you to do something, or not to do it, does not always mean it is the correct or incorrect path to take. So use your good logical deductive thinking… which sounds like you have, so you should not have to worry about much at this point. Remember, Material part of the contract is your major issue when it comes to disclosures and good faith on contracts.