Missouri does not BY LAW require you to mitigate but as I replied before, it is in your best to have it mitigated and RE-TESTED for several reasons. One, you will have the results of the first test showing the high level (which by law you MUST reveal now that you know) and two, the second test showing correction you can show to prospective buyers. Also, if your mitigation company has not fixed the problem (which the second test will also show) you have an avenue to make them mitigate until the problem is fixed. I would ask up front for the mitigation company to pay for the second testing to assure you their work is completed and for some kind of warranty as well. They will not give one showing there will never be another problem as Radon takes the path of least resistance and, should you get large cracks in your basement, it could come into the house from another avenue. They will give you something that says it is fixed, to the best of their knowledge, under the prevailing set of circumstances.

Lastly, should you stay in the home rather than selling, it's the best idea for current and future health reasons to fix the problem. Lots of people in this part of the country use their basement space for kids bedrooms and family rooms where you spend the vast majority of your time. Radon is something that is cumulative (like cigarette smoke) so the longer you're exposed the more it affects you. Good luck and I have people you can call in Columbia and mid-Missouri if that's your area.

Tue Dec 11 2007, 10:07

No. The seller would be wise to, but it is his option. If the seller does not, then the buyer can walk and get his earnest money back. The seller then LEGALLY has to declare the radon levels on his seller's disclosure which will turn off other buyers or you'll just have them ask to have it mitigated as well. Sorry, but quite frankly it is not wise to ignore it.

Mon Dec 10 2007, 12:36

Overwealmingly - your answer is "NO" you are not required to mitigate. HOWEVER, since the unfavorable results of the test must be disclosed. I would recommend to my client to have the conditions mitigated and then RE-TEST. Full disclusure will require the unfavorable results of the prior test as well as the improved results - after mitigating the radon conditions.

There is no guarantee that the property will not be stigmatized by the Radon test (to some degree). There are always buyers that are looking for "something" to criticize. You should then focus your attentions to staging, competetive pricing and proper marketing.

GOOD LUCK

Mon Dec 10 2007, 09:02

Your realtor should be able to answer this- depends on the state's law. In Maine, no requirement for the seller to mitigate for radon or lead, only as an option for negotiating or removing themselves from the contract if these items fall under inspections contingencies.

Sat Nov 10 2007, 13:10

Not to my knowledge. However, it is definitely an issue that the buyer can negotiate with the seller. The buyer should seek advice regarding the seriousness of the level of radon.

Sat Nov 10 2007, 05:21

The answers below have provided you good advice. As a representative for a buyer, I had a deal fall apart over a radon read lower than what you are reporting. My buyer was paying cash without any contingencies, except for a radon. General inspections were waived (intended to knock down and build), paying cash (proof of funds provided), and no C/O needed in that town (required in NJ for occupancy, but not typically required in resales in other states.) The deal fell apart over a radon test and the subsequent inability for the buyer and seller to agree on a system or a credit.

Sometimes its not about a legal requirement, but a matter of negotiations. In the above scenario, no law required the seller to take specific action. Yes, the seller was required to disclose the fact the property positive for radon to all future prospective buyers, as you would be if this is similar to your situation.

Some buyers become very worried about radon at this level and it can impact their willingness to go forward or not. Since I do not know all of the details about your contract, I am hesitant to simply advise that you should install a mitigation system. I lean in that direction, and more info may confirm that advice, or negate that advice. If a seller had deeply discounted the sale and was overwhelmingly and completely confident there was virtually no or the most minimal chance a buyer would not walk, I could see a seller saying, “Yes, there is radon, but your fantastic price and other terms allow you to fix that at your expense. I will not.” In most cases, I would advise a seller that there was risk of losing the sale if he/she did not either issue a credit or install a mitigation system.
The decision you need to make is what will happen if you do not install a radon mitigation system? Will your buyers walk? If they do, what is the likelihood of you getting another contract equal to or greater than the one in hand? (Remember you will be disclosing to future buyers the radon test results here.) What additional expenses might you incur by selling later vs. now? The cost of the system is usually not worth the risk. You will need to evaluate that for your situation.

Most buyers will ask for corrective action or credit upon receiving positive radon test results, so the fact your buyers have made this request is not out of the ordinary. I would be surprised if you buyers did not ask for this, given the test results.

Sat Nov 10 2007, 04:56

Hi. I also am experienced Missouri REALTOR and what Dale stated is correct. The law does not require you to mitigate but you must disclose once a high radon level once it's known and an uncorrected negative of that sort puts you at the bottom of the heap for selling. I highly advise you to mitigate immediately. I'm in Columbia, have names of companies in mid-Missouri and Kansas City. Dale has you covered for St Louis. Depending on your structure, mitigation is generally not that expensive in the grand scheme of things (from $750 for a slab in this area to $1500 for a 2-story with walk-out basement) but can run higher if your home is larger than average. This is the government web site telling you all about radon. http://www.epa.gov/radon/ look to the left and it tells you the companies that can help you. Contact me if you're in my area and I'll give the name of the company I used and liked the best (I've used 3 and one was definitely cheaper).
Trisha Lee, REMAX Boone Realty, Columbia, MO 573-999-1000 or TrishaLee@Remax.net

Sat Nov 10 2007, 04:13

OK, I am an experienced MO Realtor. The answer to your questions is NO, the seller is NOT required to mitigate in MO. Most will, because they recognize that if the buyer choses to walk away from the contract (and the buyer has that right) they will have to disclose the radon on their seller's disclosure to future buyers and it's a very strong negative in getting their home sold (generally, it's a kiss of death, especially with as many homes as there are on the market right now that the buyer can move on to), while having the mitigation system in place will give potential buyers a feeling of security. I have had buyers who have walked due to a high radon level (even after the seller has said mitigate it down to an acceptable level) I have never had a buyer accept a home "as is" with a high radon level that was not mitigated. In some cases, the buyer's home owner's insurance may be affected by a high radon level, as well. Quite frankly, my advice to sellers is to mitigate it as quickly as possible. I can give you the names of companies in the St Louis area that will do it, if you need contractors, just give me a call at 314-660-4803.

Fri Nov 9 2007, 23:46

As stated, we don't know if it is required by law in MO and hopefully a MO agent or your agent can answer that question (which I doubt is the case). What you want to do is read the home inspection contingency clause to see what the options are. In many cases it is:
Seller can fix it
Seller can give a credit
Seller can refuse to fix or give a credit
Buyer can accept it as is
Buyer can walk away and get his earnest money back.

What I would suggest is getting three estimates on installing a radon mitigation system and make your decision what to do with the guidance of your agent.

The following is a horrible thread but Joe's most recent post discusses Radon. Joe is a home inspector in PA.
Ruth

Fri Nov 9 2007, 22:22

Radon in a home in Delaware or Pennsylvania is considered a serious issue. It is not a law for the seller to mitigate but the buyer can walk away if it is not. They have their families health to consider. What you could do is offer to pay part of the installation of a system. Like everything else in a sale this issue can be negotiated . Good luck with your home sale and with your new home if you are planning on buying another home at this time.

Fri Nov 9 2007, 21:07

Hi Se. If there is some kind of state mandate, your agent would have to know about that. I am not familiar with Missouri law, but frankly I doubt that there is any such state mandate. In CA, there are some state mandated requirements such as the water heater has to be strapped and the smoke detectors have to function, but there's nothing that mandates a radon mitigation system. Many buyers in CA don't even test for radon, but buyers receive a natural hazard zone report which addresses average radon levels in the area where the property is.

Hopefully, a Missouri agent will also respond to your question. LIke I said, your agent would know the answer to that question. If I were you, I'd find out how much a radon mitigation system would cost and then make an informed decision. It is possible that other buyers would also have an issue with the radon level. If you had known what the radon level was, would you have looked into a mitigation system for your own health?

Fri Nov 9 2007, 20:46