Do I need to disclose this [something bad] if I sell the property? Every lawyer that does real estate closings is asked this question? While disclosing everything is needless and silly, if it is latent, hidden, not readily observable, you should give careful thought to disclosing it. In fact, the law may require that you do so.

First, what kinds of issues generate disclosure questions. The list has no limit, but here are some common questions: old, abandoned septic and oil tanks; old wells; contamination that once existed but was cleaned; contamination nearby, but not on site; nearby crimes; factories that pollute and are in the general neighborhood; low aircraft traffic; train and other noises.

What needs to be disclosed is a function of local law and local custom. The law in this area is always evolving, and in general, the the trend seems to me to be one that promotes more and more disclosure. I always tell clients that it there is any doubt, they should disclose.

In some jurisdictions, that doctrine of "caveat emptor" may not require disclosure of everything. That is an old doctrine that means "let the buyer beware." But even where this is still the law, it often does not apply to hidden defects. For example, a buried underground tank that was not removed may have to be disclosed because even with due diligence a buyer may not be able to learn about the tank before closing.

In may places, even when caveat emptor applies, a seller may still be liable if he or she spoke about site conditions, but failed to give the entire picture. If a seller speaks at all about site conditions, he or she better paint a very complete, full and accurate picture.

Failing to disclose what ought to be disclosed may result in a lawsuit. A buyer may allege fraud, misrepresentation and perhaps breach of contract. In certain cases, a jury may award punitive damages, typically high dollar awards designed to punish the wrongdoer.

Disclosure issues are locally based, what must be disclosed in one place may differ in another. Which means that local professionals should be consulted. The key is for everyone to be real careful. Disclosure cases are not uncommon. And buyers hate surprises.

In my opinion, it is always better to be safe than sorry. And while this seems to be increasingly less important, morality means not hiding problems under the carpet. Yes, disclosing may make a sale a little more difficult. But everything can be sold at the right price. And full disclosure is honest and avoids legal entanglements down the road. Who needs that kind of grief?

It's funny. If you do not disclose you may sell a home at a higher price. But when you are sued four years later, you will regret not having disclosed and legal fees will likely exceed the small amount of extra money that you were paid because you did not disclose. Disclosure never creates problems that do not otherwise exist, and it avoids lawsuits.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.