For those looking to purchase in the Akron area, August saw
the listing of a beautiful 2,170 square foot ranch home with stunning ground to
ceiling windowed walls, an open floor plan, and plenty of views of the
surrounding wooded lot. It’s the perfect home for those looking for a little
bit of privacy and a lot of style. There’s just one little problem with this
gorgeous 1950’s home, and it’s not the $329,000 price tag; this is the
childhood home and scene of the first murder committed by Jeffrey Dahmer.
For the past seven years the house has been owned by
musician Chris Butler, who although admits to simply loving the home and it’s construction,
found himself spending more and more time out of state. His decision to sell
the property has presented an interesting problem for the realtor listing it;
how do you overcome years of negative press and sell the home once belonging to
a prolific serial killer?
This property falls into a category referred to as “Stigmatized
Property”; homes that were once the scenes of murders, suicides, and supposed
hauntings all fall under this category and can sometimes be a challenge to
sell. Sellers are by law required to disclose physical information on their
homes, whether it be a damaged roof, cracks in the foundation, or any other
number of potential problems with the property. When it comes to non-physical
problems, often referred to as “emotional defects” the laws become a little
murky from state to state. Only some states require sellers to divulge
emotional defects, and even then the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is often invoked. Most states
do not require realtors to divulge this information to potential buyers, but
are required to own up to anything if they are asked directly. If someone were
interested in the property in Akron and heard of its connection to Dahmer,
leading them to ask their agent, they would have to divulge any information
they knew of. It really comes down to potential buyers doing their research on
the property before making an offer.
Perhaps the most famous case involving stigmatized property,
the Stambovsky vs. Ackley trial in New York, would set precedence for such
cases. Helen Ackley, the longtime owner of a home in Nyack, New York built just
outside of New York City and along the Hudson River (an area already suspected
of ghosts thanks to Sleepy Hollow) spent the better part of her residency there
perpetuating the idea that the house was haunted. Her home would be featured in
a column in Readers Digest and the local papers, with Ackley and her family
claiming to have experienced poltergeist activity numerous times. The family
would even later open up the home to locals, charging admission for “ghost
tours” and other spooky themed activities. However, by the late 80’s Helen was
ready to retire to Florida, and needed to sell her supposedly haunted estate. The
fact that the Ackley family had spent decades claiming that the home was
infested with ghosts was swept under the rug, and it wasn’t long before Jeffrey
Stambovsky made a $650,000 offer on the home.
It would be some time after going into contract on the home
that Stambovsky would run into one of his future neighbors, who asked the
question that would lead to one of the most unique court cases in New York
history; “So you’re buying the haunted house are you?”
After digging through records and articles on the property,
Stambovsky would file an action requesting rescission of contract, and for
damages for fraudulent misinterpretation against Ackley and her agent. When Mr.
Stambovsky did not attend the closing, his $32,500 down payment was forfeited
and a New York Supreme Court dismissed his action, which he appealed in turn.
According to the Supreme Court, it didn’t matter if you believed in ghosts or
not; the wide reporting of the hauntings did in fact affect the value of the
home. However, the realtor was not legally obligated to tell Mr. Stambovsky
anything, and cited caveat emptor, meaning
he was not entitled to damages. However, an appellate court overturned this
decision, saying that no normal home inspection would be able to uncover the
presence of spirits, and that the buyer was misled in such a way that any
discussion of potential deaths or hauntings of the residence would have never
come up. Ackley was accused of preying on Mr. Stambovsky’s ignorance of the
area to sell her home, and he was allowed to end the contract and receive
damages. The home wouldn’t be sold until 1991, and it is unknown if the buyers
this time around were aware of the home’s past.
It’s messy cases like this that lead many realtors to
disclose information when asked, as to avoid any legal ramifications against
themselves or the sellers. However, you can’t always take things at face value,
and it might be smart to look up your potential new home in public records, or
even get to know your possible new neighbors and ask them about the
neighborhood. This doesn’t just apply to other-worldly phenomena’s either; it’s
always a good idea to look up the neighborhood you’re thinking of purchasing in
to see if crimes are prevalent in the area, or if you’re potentially living
down the street from recorded offenders. It’s always good to know exactly what
you’re getting in to.
Sadly, a wonderful property can suffer devaluation based on
its past and sit empty for long periods of time. Before Chris Butler purchased
the Dahmer home in 2005, the property sat for 6 months and was listed well below
what it was actually worth. This led Butler to ask the realtor why it hadn’t
been purchased yet, and he received the news on its horrific past. The Dahmers
had purchased the home in 1968 and raised their two children, including Jeffrey
there. It was here that Dahmer would commit his first murder, that of Steven M.
Hicks in 1978. Worse yet, police would later find Hicks remains scattered
throughout the property, well after his murder spree came to a close. When
Butler was notified of this he “didn’t stop shaking for another 24 hours.” Despite
this, Butler did purchase the home, and reported no paranormal activity, no
feelings of dread, and not many curious onlookers. While a property like this
might not be for everybody, it’s really up to the buyer to decide if they can
look past the sometimes unsettling history of a house and see a home worthy of
their love.
