Linda is selling her duplex in Jefferson City, Missouri. She completes the seller disclosure statement but intentionally omits a known history of flooding in the lower unit, believing that because she is selling the property 'as-is,' she has no obligation to disclose the flooding. Her listing broker, Tom, is also aware of the flooding but does not disclose it. The buyer purchases the property and later discovers the flooding history. Under Missouri law, which of the following most accurately describes the potential legal consequences?

Correct Answer

A) Linda may face liability under the Missouri Seller Disclosure Act, and both Linda and Tom may face liability under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for concealment of a known material defect.

An 'as-is' sale clause does not eliminate the seller's obligation to complete an accurate seller disclosure statement under RSMo § 339.730 et seq. Linda's intentional omission of known flooding constitutes a violation of the Missouri Seller Disclosure Act, exposing her to civil liability. Additionally, both Linda and Tom may face liability under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (RSMo § 407.010 et seq.), which prohibits concealment of material facts in real estate transactions and is enforced by the Missouri Attorney General. Tom, as a licensee with knowledge of the defect, has an independent duty to disclose and cannot hide behind the seller's incomplete disclosure statement. Tom also faces potential MREC disciplinary action under RSMo Chapter 339.