Into the Weekend 06.13.25

I’ve never been a criminal. And I’ve really never been tempted to lean in that direction (except when it comes to 1) ramming into overly hesitant drivers who refuse to inch into the intersection when making a left turn; and 2) “accidentally” bumping into oblivious scooter riders when they ride on the sidewalk with airpods (and without helmets)).

But the State of Illinois recognizes that criminals need to sell their homes at some point.

You see, in each residential real estate transaction the seller is required to provide a form which discloses any material defects of which they are aware to prospective buyers. Most of the 23 disclosures are pretty predictable: the seller must disclose if they are aware of material defects in the roof, in the electrical system, in the plumbing system, in the foundation - stuff like that.

You check either yes, no, or N/A.

But the last of the 23 has always been my pet favorite. It reads, and I quote: “I am aware that this property has been used for manufacture of methamphetamine as defined in Section 10 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act.” 

Again, you check either yes, no, or N/A.

I’ve never read Section 10 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, and I doubt most sellers have either. But, as a University of Chicago Law School graduate, I think I am equipped to deduce that it prohibits the manufacturing of meth in one’s home.

And, even though I’ve never been a criminal, I think I can get into a criminal’s mind and safely say that no one who has run a meth lab in their home will somehow rise to the occasion when they’re selling their house and disclose that fact on the Illinois Residential Real Property Disclosure Report. 

You gotta wonder how many sellers have checked “yes” on line 23. And what happens when they do? Does the seller give the buyer a meth credit? How much should that meth credit be? Do they voluntarily go to their neighborhood precinct and turn themselves in? Does someone call 911? 311 even?

I doubt most buyers would welcome that disclosure, but perhaps one could argue that it increases the utility of the house for at least a few meth lab operators out there looking for their dream home (perhaps after their previous one exploded?). And, in that case, maybe there should be a meth premium.

Certainly you would think it gives a duped buyer grounds to sue the seller later for harm done when the buyer discovers that the seller hid the truth when the house was sold without that disclosure.

Whatever the case, line 23 has been with us for years, and it looks like it’s here to stay. Thankfully, none of my law-abiding sellers have ever had to grapple with that question (to my knowledge).

But, be forewarned, some of them do refuse to inch into the intersection when making a left turn.

Have a great weekend!

Best,

Brad