11/04/2025
Spooky but Real...
Ghost Disclosure: Legally Required
by Ethan Atkinson | Oct 30, 2025
Though it sounds wild, a state supreme court
officially ruled in 1989 that a house was haunted. The judgeās exact words were āAs a matter of law,
the house is haunted.ā This is still the final ruling on this case, and it opened up decades of legally
mandated ghost disclosure. So, how did we get here?
Ghosts play a much larger role in real estate sales than you might imagine. A Zillow study recently
found that 12% of homes are haunted. This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted
by Harvard research scientistsā¦ in no way whatsoever. This was actually the result of a survey finding
that 12% of homebuyers think their home is hauntedā¦ whatever that means!
Though Iām making fun of this survey, Iām actually open to the idea that there are haunted houses.
Quite honestly, if I heard that a house I liked were haunted, I probably wouldnāt buy it. Itās not that
Iāve seen hard scientific proof of the paranormal; I just believe that there is an incredible amount that
we donāt know about the universe. Regardless of whether ghosts are real, there is one state that
requires disclosure of paranormal activity in real estate sales, and that isā¦ New York, of all places!
New Yorkās precedent-setting ghost disclosure case Stambovsky v. Ackley went all the way to the
New York Supreme Court, which famously wrote the line āas a matter of law, the house is haunted.ā
This makes it seem like there were spiritual subpoenas or a court-ordered seance. However, in
reading about this case, it becomes clear that the court determined as a matter of law that the house
was haunted; not as a matter of fact. Itās helpful here to recall certain legal constructs that are
matters of law but not of fact; for example the legal fiction that a corporation is a person. This is true
in law, as a corporation can hold title to real estate as an individual, but it is not a matter of fact that a
corporation is a person.
The Stambovsky v. Ackley house became legally haunted because the homeās seller, Ms. Ackley,
widely publicized that the house was haunted in both local and national publications, including in
Readerās Digest. Her description of the homeās supernatural character in various news media made
the home into a local legend. The judge determined that Ms. Ackley could not reasonably deny that
the house was haunted, since this would contradict her own widespread statements about it. Note
that the judge did not weigh in on whether the house was actually haunted, but determined that Ms.
Ackley could not legally deny that it was haunted in her experience. Additionally, Ms. Ackleyās efforts
to communicate to the world that the house was haunted put the house in a reputationally
stigmatized condition.
The buyer, Mr. Stambovsky, sued to get out of the purchase contract and get his $32,500 down
payment back because he found out about the propertyās grave spiritual problems only after entering
into the contract. The court ruled that Ms. Ackley should have proactively disclosed that she knew
the house to be haunted to any potential buyer, in addition to disclosing the houseās local reputation.
This brings up another fascinating aspect to this case, which is that New York is a caveat emptor
state, meaning that itās a ābuyer bewareā state. Buyer beware doctrine means that buyers are
responsible for doing their own due diligence for the most part; if the buyer doesnāt have an
inspection performed, itās not usually the sellerās fault for not proactively disclosing problems that an
inspection would have uncovered. This makes it especially surprising that Ms. Ackley was supposed
to proactively disclose the homeās ghostly condition.
At first glance, it seems odd that state law requires the seller to proactively disclose almost nothing,
except the existence of ghostsā¦ right? If the burden is on the buyer to perform their own due
diligence and discover information the seller is not obligated to volunteer, then why would this not
apply to the spirit realm?
Though this seems strange, it actually makes a degree of sense. The reason that Ms. Ackley was held
to a higher standard of disclosure is precisely because a home inspection could not have uncovered
paranormal activity or a reputation of such activity. According to Cornell Law Schoolās description of
caveat emptor doctrine, a buyer may only seek damages if they āacted prudently and exercised due
care to assess the fitness and value of the purchased property.ā This means that a buyer who did not
conduct a home inspection, for example, may not seek damages if a home inspection would likely
have uncovered the homeās hidden defects. However, once a buyer does all the reasonable due
diligence they could possibly perform, then that buyer can hold the seller responsible for certain
issues. Put another way, the seller can be held responsible for omitting facts that could not have been
uncovered by reasonable inspections, and there is no legally recognized inspection for hauntings.
Thus, the court determined that caveat emptor doctrine did not apply to this case.
Since the buyer, Mr. Stambovsky, was not from the area, he would not have known the homeās status
as a local legend. Though Ms. Ackley had discussed her homeās hauntings in a national publication,
the home was not nationally famous. Even through an investigation of title records, Stambovsky
could not reasonably have uncovered a haunting, or a reputation of one. An out-of-towner who did
all their due diligence would not reasonably deduce that Ms. Ackley had been running a publicity
campaign about the house being possessed. Thus, buyer beware doctrine did not apply, and Ms.
Ackley was required to proactively disclose that she was locally famous for believing her home to be
haunted, according to the New York Supreme Court.
Iād like to note that this case was in 1989, well before the internet became widespread. These days, I
do an internet search before even taking a breath of air, so Iām curious to know how this case would
have played out in the present day. Is conducting an internet search on a property part of reasonable
due diligence according to caveat emptor doctrine?
Among other things, this case is a reminder that itās often difficult to know whatās going to become
illegal in advance, especially if itās a complicated situation like this haunted home sale. I can
understand why Ms. Ackley might have thought she didnāt need to disclose anything because New
York is widely known to be a buyer beware state. Who could know that this buyer beware doctrine
would exclude paranormal activity? That said, the fact that youāve made your home infamous as a
stigmatized property seems instinctively like something you should disclose to buyers.
There really isnāt a replacement for using your ethical instincts about honesty and fair dealing. If
youāve created a widespread publicity campaign about your house being haunted, it seems ethical
that you should disclose this to a potential buyer. If youāre unsure, just remember that even if
something isnāt explicitly prohibited by law, it could still be found illegal later on. If youāre not careful,
you could easily become the focus of a precedent-setting case. New York case law didnāt used to
explicitly prohibit running a publicity campaign about your own house being haunted and then trying
to hide this infamous haunting from potential buyersā¦ but now it does!
Thanks Online ED!
