Robert is selling his home in Clark County, Nevada. He completed the Seller's Real Property Disclosure Form and disclosed that the property had a prior methamphetamine contamination that was professionally remediated three years ago, with a passing clearance certificate obtained from a licensed remediation contractor. The buyer, after receiving the disclosure and the clearance certificate, proceeds to closing. One year later, the buyer discovers residual contamination and sues Robert. Which of the following best describes Robert's legal position under Nevada law?

Correct Answer

A) Robert has no liability because he fully disclosed the prior contamination and provided the remediation clearance certificate, satisfying his obligations under NRS Chapter 113.

Under NRS Chapter 113 and Nevada's disclosure framework, a seller who fully and accurately discloses a known material condition — including prior methamphetamine contamination — and provides supporting documentation such as a professional remediation clearance certificate, has fulfilled the statutory disclosure obligation. The buyer received all material information, made an informed decision to proceed, and cannot later claim non-disclosure. Nevada law does not impose ongoing strict liability on sellers who properly disclose and document remediated conditions. Robert's complete and accurate disclosure is his protection against post-closing liability for this known condition.