Q: I bought my house in August 2006. I was informed by my neighbors that the previous owner had committed suicide, but this was not mentioned in any documents at the time of closing. The sons of the owner are the ones who sold the property. I’m not sure if their Realtor knew of this. Strange things do happen occasionally, but I’ve learned to live with it. Are we entitled to anything monetary or otherwise because this information was not disclosed?

— I.R., Los Angeles

A: There is an affirmative obligation in California for the seller or landlord of a residential property to disclose known, material information that may adversely affect the property’s value. Typically, this means a structural issue or a boundary matter or other items of that nature. California Civil Code Section 1710.2, however, provides that if someone dies on the property, it is considered a material defect, but the disclosure obligation is limited to a death that occurred within three years of the date of your offer to purchase or to rent.

If Section 1710.2 would apply to your purchase offer made in 2006, and you have actual, provable damages, perhaps there is a claim you could make. Research indicates such a claim usually seeks the difference between what you paid to purchase or rent, compared to what the property would have been worth had the death been disclosed. Note that if the death was caused by acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), disclosure is not required because the condition is considered a disability and thus discriminatory to mandate disclosure.

Q: One of the reasons we are selling our house is we simply do not like our neighbor. She is loud and her son plays music well into the night, so we are going to move. Do we have to disclose our problems with her to any possible buyer?

— L.A., Lomita

A: California has a standard Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement, required as part of the information you provide to a prospective buyer pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 1102 and those following. Under one provision of the form, you are asked to disclose whether or not you are aware of any “neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances.” Based upon what you have described, you would check “yes,” and briefly explain it on the form. The prospective buyer can investigate from there.

Q: What do you think of having one broker represent both the buyer and seller in a residential transaction?

— J.H., Long Beach

A: It is not permissible in many states, but is allowed in California. My personal experience gives me qualms about it, but you are asking me from a legal standpoint. Thus, I will try to be objective. One advantage of a dual agency is you probably get a break on the commission. You also have one person, presumably quite knowledgeable about the property and about what each side is looking for. There is a required disclosure both seller and buyer are to sign, if they agree to have the same broker.

Thus, it really comes down to a comfort level for you. In my experience, once the deal was done, I had serious questions about whether the broker was more loyal to me (and my wife) than to the other party. One way to avoid that doubt, in my view, is to have your own agent or broker, so that the transaction is all that much more likely to be at arm’s length.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 30 years of experience. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email questions and comments to him at RonSesq@aol.com or write to him at Ask The Lawyer, Daily Breeze, 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 170, Torrance, CA 90503. This column is a summary of the law and not a substitute for legal consultation on any particular case.