Land Sellers - If You're Not Doing FULL Disclosure, You're Conning Buyers

I’ve seen too many slimy land sellers trying to justify bare minimum disclosures with this ridiculous “buyer beware” mentality. News flash - that’s an outdated crutch for grifters to lean on instead of behaving ethically.

Sellers have a moral and increasingly legal obligation to be fully transparent about ANY potential issues or defects that could impact the property value or intended use. Doesn’t matter if it’s hypothetical zoning changes, past environmental studies, easements, encroachments - anything and everything gets disclosed upfront, period.

This “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality of holding back negatives unless specifically asked is shady as hell. It’s essentially conning buyers by omitting critical details they have a right to know. Pulling punches on disclosures is a violation of trust.

Buyer due diligence only goes so far. Sellers have intrinsic knowledge that a buyer may never uncover through inspections. Withholding that because you’re scared of “devaluing” the deal is putting your own greed above all else.

If you aren’t willing to follow full transparency rules, then you have no place in this business. Sellers who think they can still play shady games and hide behind “buyer beware” need to take a long hard look at their ethics. There’s no room for that garbage anymore.

If a seller simply doesn’t know about an issue, how are they to be transparent about it?

Especially in situations where the seller inherited the property, they have no familiarity with it, and they’re selling it for cheap, is it really fair to put none of the burden of due diligence on the buyer?


Whoa there @sallyhoskins. Chill!

Have you ever done due diligence on land before? It’s not always reasonable to expect the seller to know everything.

1 Like