Brought to you in part by
KIRO Radio's Tom Kelly digs deep into the Puget Sound real estate market
 Real Estate
Listen to the show
Hear Real Estate Today on KIRO Radio
Join Tom Kelly every Sunday at 9am on KIRO Radio to talk Puget Sound real estate.

Agency, sellers sued for not disclosing double homicide

November 23, 2012 @ 11:14 am

A couple has sued a Toronto area real estate firm and agent and the home's former owners for failing to disclose early enough in the transaction that the home had been the scene of a double homicide 15 years ago.

Homeowners Eric and Sade-Lea Tekoniemi claim that the murders have "stigmatized, psychologically impacted, and tainted the property," according to the lawsuit. Sade-Lea Tekoniemi alleges she has suffered depression and sleep and mood disorder from the horrific images in her mind from the murders that took place in the home.

The couple is seeking $450,000 in damages. They say they want to sell the home but are looking to recover some of the depreciation in the home's value since the disclosure had not been made to them.

The couple said they wanted to cancel the sale of the home as soon as they learned about the home's history. However, the couple said at the time their lawyer advised them it was too late to cancel the sale without standing to lose too much financially already in the deal.

The house was the scene of a double homicide in 1996, in which Ron England, who had paranoid schizophrenia, murdered his mother and six-year-old stepdaughter by stabbing them to death multiple times.
The couple has sued RE/MAX First Realty, agent Mary Roy, and the former homeowners, who had purchased the home following the double homicide. The real estate firm and agent have yet to comment on the pending case.

"Lawyers say the case involves a grey area in common law on the issue of 'duty to disclose' - and how to assess what information that entails," The Toronto Star reported.

More Real Estate News

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (14)


  • Add A Comment

  • mwor680 wrote...
    Just Stop It
    November 23, 2012 5:32 pm
    "stigmatized, psychologically impacted, and tainted the property." How can a piece of property be psychologically impacted, and how can the current owners be kept up at night by images of something that occured 15 years ago which they had no knowledge of until late in the closing process? Give me a break.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @mwor680 - think about it...
    November 27, 2012 8:48 am
    How many people would purchase a property where a double murder has occured? How many of the few that would actually buy it would pay top dollar that it would be worth had the double murder not happened there? The fact that this occured on this property affects the mindset of any and all potential buyers because it has "stigmatized, psychologically impacted, and tainted the property." It's badly phrased, but it means that the value of this property is damaged by this event, and it's value is significantly diminished. So, no - don't 'just stop it'. In washington state ANYTHING that materially affects the value of a property MUST be disclosed. And if this double murder wasn't - and that failure to disclose caused the property to not be worth what it would otherwise be worth - LAWSUIT for misrepresentation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jstumbo wrote...
    And what of the original victims.
    November 23, 2012 9:57 pm
    They were somehow stabbed to death multiple times. Not just once or twice, but multiple times.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    Nice catch, jstumbo
    November 24, 2012 7:19 am
    Didn't sound right but I just kept reading- then laughed at your reply. Of course I wasn't laughing at the victims like AJ McD0uche would do if they were LE.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • adiru wrote...
    jstumbo
    November 25, 2012 9:59 am
    The English language seems to be a challenge for those in the media, no?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    geez guys....
    November 27, 2012 8:49 am
    The best comment you've got is 'grammer police'?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Ahhh oh no another victim
    November 24, 2012 2:52 pm
    Money will make it all ok im sure. Just wait and see.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • davewestse wrote...
    Ghosts, Goblins, and Money
    November 24, 2012 3:34 pm
    My lovely wife is a RE. (Anyone wanting to buy a house, now is a great time. Please feel free to somehow contact us!) Here in WA (Seattle area); Homicides, Murders, etc. are legally NOT considered any type of material fact affecting the 'value' of the home; and having to be disclosed. And agent is not allowed to LIE when asked a direct question on this however... In Toronto - not quite sure of all the rules. The article states it is somewhat muddy... However - a simple money making scam is KNOWN. This couple KNEW of this 'condition' - BEFORE the house closed. They consulted an Attorney on it; before the closing. They did NOT have to buy the house. Could have totally WALKED away; and been spared the numerous nightmares they already knew they were going to experience if they continued to purchase. But, they decided that the $15k - $20K or so (plus the $400 aprx inspection costs) were too much to walk away and not purchase. I mean - if it is such a big deal; don't purchase; and Sue for your ernest funds... However; it makes for so much more fun to claim extreme distress; and ask for more funds than you even paid for the house... Your personal bank account wins big! Personally, I hope they lose, lose, lose! And have to pay the attorney and court costs of eveyone they are dragging into court! They could have walked away from this deal. And even if they hadn't found out about it (which they did before the sale was complete) - it really DOESN'T make any difference. I know that the sellers - were walking Zombies, with drool running down their faces and such; from the total lack of sleep over the more than last ten years of living in this haunted, physcological horror filled home! Regards, David S
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raining Sideways wrote...
    Sue Your Lawyer!!
    November 24, 2012 8:46 pm
    This story sounds fishy, I hope the jury sees that too. If the original owner had failed to disclose something, a good attorney would know that the buyers could back out without losing any money in the deal because of the failure to notify. What a stupid case
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    Sounds like
    November 24, 2012 9:21 pm
    another poorly written law where the seller(s) took advantage of the wording.

    But the whole psychological part is quite entertaining.......

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hpygolkyone wrote...
    My Two Cents........................
    November 25, 2012 6:20 am
    @Davewestse...............your spammy comment causes me great distress. Please send me all of your money and save us a lot of grief in court.

    On another note: Your comment (other than the spam) did provide me with a little more insight into the transaction process.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Miss Kitty (1) wrote...
    I thought you had to disclose this...
    November 25, 2012 9:54 pm
    I have not bought a house in nearly a decade, but at that time I was told that you had to disclose a murder, a rape, or a suicide that had occurred in the home. This is because it really IS harder to sell a home that is considered 'notorious' because many people do believe some kind of 'taint' somehow attaches to objects associated with a sordid event or person. But also agree with an earlier post that the buyers should have not gone forward with sale and asked for the earnest money back, on the grounds that the sellers / seller's agent would not want to get the bad publicity of the would-be buyers SUING to get it back. Can't see a $450K suffering out of this, unless it's a $5 million home they can only sell for 4.5 mil I think this is bogus. It will be interesting to see how Canadian law works on this.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Loving Life wrote...
    Since it's not a material defect, it doesn't need to be disclosed.
    November 26, 2012 5:58 am
    But commen sense says you do let all parties know. As in this case, all parties knew there was a double homicide. The buyers could have walked, at ny time, but willingly decided not too. In Washington state, even if they walked the day of signing, all they would have lost was their Ernest Money. Suing the previous owners, the real estate company, and the agent? Not going to fly. The home lost money due to the worldwide recession.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Loving Life wrote...
    One last thing, the buyers could have used Bing or Google...
    November 26, 2012 6:15 am
    ...to check the property's history. Also, in Washington State, you have an amount of time to do a Neighborhood Review. This includes checking with local authorities, websites, and neighbors, to see if there is anything untoward about the home or area.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }