West Virginia Seller Disclosure Requirements: What Home Sellers Must Reveal
No West Virginia statute requires a property-condition disclosure form when a house is resold. The seller’s duty is judge-made: under Thacker v. Tyree (1982), a seller who knows of a hidden defect that substantially affects value or habitability must tell the buyer. Condo and HOA resales add a statutory certificate.
For an ordinary house resale, that court rule is the West Virginia law on seller disclosure; the statutes and the one rule further down add duties only for particular properties. The general home selling guide covers the rest of a sale.
The Thacker v. Tyree rule, in the court’s words
The Supreme Court of Appeals decided Thacker v. Tyree, 171 W. Va. 110, 297 S.E.2d 885, in November 1982. The trial court had thrown out a buyer’s suit, apparently on caveat emptor grounds. The Supreme Court reversed and held that “where a vendor is aware of defects or conditions which substantially affect the value or habitability of the property and the existence of which are unknown to the purchaser and would not be disclosed by a reasonably diligent inspection, then the vendor has a duty to disclose the same to the purchaser.” A failure to disclose “will give rise to a cause of action in favor of the purchaser.”
Four conditions sit inside that sentence, and a buyer’s case needs all of them:
- the seller knew of the defect or condition;
- it substantially affects value or habitability;
- the buyer did not know of it;
- a reasonably diligent inspection would not have revealed it.
The last condition cuts both ways. As the court put it in Teter v. Old Colony (1994), “the buyer may be chargeable for a defect that a reasonable inspection would disclose.” The rule is still applied. In Hall v. Lilly, No. 24-ICA-151 (March 24, 2025), the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed a Raleigh County defense verdict where the jury had been told the buyers “must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence,” and the parties agreed that instruction matched Thacker.
Sellers in Hinerman v. Rodriguez (2012) and Hall v. Lilly filled out a written disclosure statement anyway; in Hinerman the purchase agreement itself referred to the “Property Disclosure Statement.” A false answer on such a form is a different claim from silence. Teter describes Lengyel v. Lint, 167 W. Va. 272 (1981), as dealing with “misrepresentations regarding the fitness or quality of the property which induced the purchaser to buy it.” Answer from what you know, and attach the inspection or repair records you already have.
An “as is” clause did not save the sellers in Stemple v. Dobson
In Stemple v. Dobson, 184 W. Va. 317, 400 S.E.2d 561 (1990), the buyers of a house in Vienna, Wood County, found termite damage after closing. Their contract said they bought “as is.” The court held that such a clause “will not relieve the vendor of his obligation to disclose a condition which substantially affects the value or habitability of the property and which condition is known to the vendor, but not to the purchaser, and would not be disclosed by a reasonable and diligent inspection. Such failure to disclose constitutes fraud.” An as-is sale shifts repair costs; it does not license silence about a known hidden defect.
How long a buyer has to sue
Stemple applied W. Va. Code § 55-2-12, which gives “two years next after the right to bring the same shall have accrued” for damage to property, to the buyers’ fraud claim. The same case held that for tort and fraud claims the period “does not begin to run until the injured person knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the nature of his injury,” and that when that happened is a jury question. The closing date alone does not start the clock.
Listing agents answer to Teter v. Old Colony and § 30-40-19
The seller’s duty and the agent’s duty are separate. In Teter v. Old Colony Co., 190 W. Va. 711, 441 S.E.2d 728 (1994), the court said a seller’s broker may be liable to a buyer for failing to disclose defects “of which the broker is aware or reasonably should be aware, but the purchaser is unaware and would not discover by a reasonably diligent inspection.” It also declined “to hold that a broker has an independent duty to inspect and uncover latent defects.” Separately, the Real Estate License Act lets the Real Estate Commission discipline a licensee who “Commits or is a party to any material fraud, misrepresentation, concealment” (W. Va. Code § 30-40-19(a)(22)). That is a licensing rule for agents, not a disclosure duty placed on sellers.
Condominiums, co-ops and planned communities: the § 36B-4-109 certificate
Here a statute does add paperwork. Under the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, “Except in the case of a sale in which delivery of a public offering statement is required, or unless exempt under section 4-101(b),” a unit owner must give the buyer, “before execution of any contract for sale of a unit, or otherwise before conveyance,” the declaration, bylaws, rules and a certificate covering 14 items, among them the monthly assessment and any unpaid amount, anticipated capital expenditures for the current and two following fiscal years, reserves, the budget, pending suits against the association, and whether the board knows of health or building code violations in the unit, its limited common elements or any other part of the community (§ 36B-4-109(a)).
- The association must produce the certificate “within ten days after a request by a unit owner” (§ 36B-4-109(b)).
- If it is late, the contract “is voidable by the purchaser until the certificate has been provided and for five days thereafter or until conveyance, whichever first occurs” (§ 36B-4-109(c)).
- The seller “is not liable to the purchaser for any erroneous information provided by the association and included in the certificate.”
Under § 36B-4-101(b), no resale certificate is needed for: (1) a gratuitous disposition of a unit; (2) a disposition pursuant to court order; (3) a disposition by a government or governmental agency; (4) a disposition by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure; (5) a disposition to a dealer; (6) a disposition that may be canceled at any time and for any reason by the purchaser without penalty; or (7) a disposition of a unit in a planned community whose declaration limits the maximum annual assessment of any unit to not more than $500, as adjusted, if the declarant has a reasonable and good faith belief that the maximum stated assessment will be sufficient to pay the expenses of the planned community, the declaration cannot be amended to increase the assessment during the period of declarant or declarant’s family control without the consent of a majority of unit owners other than the declarant, and the planned community is not subject to any development rights.
A planned community that contains no more than twelve units and is not subject to any development rights, or whose declaration provides that the annual average common expense liability of all units restricted to residential purposes, exclusive of optional user fees and any insurance premiums paid by the association, may not exceed $300 as adjusted, is subject only to §§ 36B-1-105, 1-106 and 1-107 “unless the declaration provides that this entire chapter is applicable” (§ 36B-1-203). A cooperative or planned community created before the Act with no more than twelve units and no development rights gets the same treatment unless its declaration is amended to take advantage of § 36B-1-206 (§ 36B-1-205). The HOA disclosure overview covers the practical side.
Houses built before 1978
The lead-paint rule is federal, not West Virginia law. Under 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, the seller of pre-1978 “target housing” hands over an EPA-approved pamphlet, discloses any known lead-based paint or lead hazards and any reports on them, and gives the buyer a 10-day window to test unless both sides agree in writing on another period or the buyer waives it in writing, all before the buyer is bound by the contract. Foreclosure sales are exempt, and the definition leaves out housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities and 0-bedroom units unless a child under 6 lives or is expected to live there.
A house that held a drug lab
Here West Virginia does put a disclosure duty on the seller, through a legislative rule. The Clandestine Drug Laboratory Remediation Act (W. Va. Code Chapter 60A, Article 11) directs the Department of Health to set “requirements for property owners, sellers and landlords to disclose the existence of any former clandestine laboratory site or activity to any potential occupant of the residential property” (§ 60A-11-3(a)(6)). The rule it adopted, 64 CSR 92 (effective May 1, 2022), provides: “A residential property owner and any agent thereof shall disclose information regarding the identification of a clandestine drug laboratory on the residential property to any potential purchaser or occupant, including the location of the clandestine drug laboratory, remediation plans, related enforcement actions, and the issuance of any certificate of remediation completion by the department” (64 CSR 92, § 7.3).
Once police notify an owner that a lab was found, the owner must keep the property unoccupied until the Department of Health certifies remediation, or demolish it (§ 60A-11-5(a)). After certification, an owner “who neither knew or should have known of the property’s illegal use” is immune from later occupants’ claims based on the lab (§ 60A-11-5(b)). The § 7.3 list includes “the issuance of any certificate of remediation completion,” so a certified property is still disclosed to a buyer, together with its certificate.
Questions West Virginia sellers and buyers ask
I inherited the house and never lived in it. What do I owe the buyer?
Thacker’s duty attaches to defects the seller “is aware of,” whoever the seller is. If you know of a hidden problem, say so. If a form asks about something you have no knowledge of, write that rather than guessing.
The buyer found a leak after closing. Is the seller automatically liable?
No. The buyer has to show the seller knew, that a reasonably diligent inspection would not have caught it, and that it substantially affects value or habitability. In Hall v. Lilly the jury found the sellers did not fail to disclose, and the verdict stood.
Can a condo buyer back out over the resale certificate?
Only in one situation: the association has not yet provided it. The contract stays voidable until the certificate arrives, for five days after that, or until closing if that comes first.
Should the buyer still get an inspection?
Yes, because anything a reasonably diligent inspection would show falls outside the Thacker duty. A home inspection and the common red flags list are the buyer’s side of that rule. If the problem is moisture, see selling a house with mold.