Question (MA): What do you think the future of the MLS is?

Answer: As long as the MLS is an effective method of fostering cooperation among and between real estate licensees to successfully deliver what a real estate consumer wants and needs at a price and upon terms the consumer is willing to pay, we believe such an MLS will be a demanded entity.

That does not mean, however, that it will be the same MLS as was characterized many or even several years ago. As consumers' wants and needs evolve, so must the MLS Rules change to meet those changing wants and needs if the MLS is to remain an effective marketing mechanism.

In addition, there is a serious need to keep the MLS accurate because correct information is utilized by consumers, real estate licensees and the industry in general. So some policing mechanism is needed, and so far, Realtors are the best at doing this.

Question (MO): My client made an offer of $72,500 on a $75,000 listing on a piece of property. The seller rejected the offer and withdrew the listing, only to re-list it, with the same agent, several hours later and $10,000 higher. I know that this isn't a good way to do business, but also, is it legal? Doesn't the listing on that property, even if withdrawn, have to terminate before the property can be re-listed?

Answer: If we understand your question, the owner, who was represented by an agent, rejected your purchaser's offer. There is no contractual obligation for the owner to do or to not do anything. If the owner wants to increase the asking price it is his or her choice. The fact that the listing (we assume a Multiple Listing Service or "MLS") was withdrawn then re-listed could only be at best an MLS Rules violation (i.e. an agent withdraws a listing then resubmits it at a higher price to appear as if it was a new listing). You would have to check with your MLS folks to find out if that would be a violation of the MLS Rules.

Question (NY): My husband and I recently purchased a home in Manlius, NY. A week after closing the seller stopped by our home to return a gas fireplace clicker. At that time she informed us that there was Escherichia coli ("E. coli") in our well water. My husband, I, and our three children had been drinking the water for a week. According to the previous owner, our Realtor was also aware of the E. coli problem prior to closing. We were not aware of the problem and assumed the well water had passed the water test.

We have since been informed that we will need an ultraviolet system put on our well to solve the problem. We feel that the previous owner should be responsible for fixing the problem since she was aware of the problem and did not disclose the information prior to closing. What do you think?

Answer: Based upon your original question, and then also on your responses to our subsequent questions, we suggest you hire an attorney successful with litigation in New York and go after the seller and the real estate agent. Our suggestion is based in part on New York's Property Condition Disclosure Act.

The State of New York had a longstanding rule of caveat emptor, until Governor Pataki signed into law on November 13, 2001 the Property Condition Disclosure Act, 2001 N.Y. Laws 5339-A., which became effective on March 1, 2002. It potentially shifted the burden of disclosure to the sellers of residential real property.

The Property Condition Disclosure Act (the "PCDA"), "requires" sellers of residential real property (excluding condominiums and cooperatives) containing up to 4 dwelling units to provide a disclosure statement to prospective purchasers detailing all known defects relating to the property. Sellers must complete and deliver this disclosure statement prior to a purchaser's acceptance of the contract of sale. The disclosure statement consists of 48 questions to be answered by the seller based upon the seller's actual knowledge.

The PCDA form covers a variety of subjects ranging from general information about the ownership and occupancy of the property, to structural, mechanical and environmental issues as well as statutory disclosure requirements such as federal lead-based paint. Sellers must answer each of the questions in the disclosure statement with a response of "Yes," "No," "Unkn" (unknown) or "NA" (not applicable") and a copy of the statement must be attached to the contract of sale.

However, the seller has the option to "buy out" of the disclosure requirement for a mere $500, which seems like a small price to pay for the avoidance of potential liability that could be many times more costly. The negative consequences of completing the disclosure form so far outweigh the penalty for not completing the seller's disclosure is almost like not having it at all, but not quite.

Sellers can refuse to provide a disclosure statement without any liability beyond a $500 credit paid to the buyer at closing, but there may be other consequences that sellers and purchasers should consider. The PCDA neither provides for nor excludes the remedy of rescission. Thus, there is a possibility under this statute that a purchaser may come forward even after the transfer of title and ask a court to rescind the sale because the seller failed to provide a disclosure statement.

Again, we recommend that you and your husband hire an attorney.

Question (UT): I may be moving to Texas for a job in federal law enforcement. Does Texas have a program that helps law enforcement officers buy/afford homes? I heard such programs exist in Utah and used to exist in California.

Answer: The site you should access is the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation at tsahc.org . Specifically, you want the "Homes For Heroes" section under the Programs section. This site is an official Texas site operating under the Texas Government Code, Chapter 2306, Subchapter Y, Sections 2306.551 et seq.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice also provides a flyer regarding this program.