As more and more climate change-fueled extreme weather events—from historic hurricanes to unexpected summer downpours—affect homes, one issue anyone selling or buying a home needs to be aware of is disclosure. While some states require a seller to expansively detail any history of flood damage, flood zone designation or other natural disaster threats, others have little or no disclosure requirements or provide only vague guidelines on what needs to be disclosed
A recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) panel rated all 50 states on the transparency of their flood disclosure policies on a letter grade from “A” for very transparent to “F” for failing to provide adequate policies or guidance. With 21 states receiving an “F” grade, the FEMA panel recommended the creation of a nationwide database of flood events, flood insurance claims and disaster claims.
Though most local REALTOR® associations offer a voluntary form which can be provided to clients—all of which include some flood or disaster disclosures—every real estate professional should be aware of the legal requirements and precedents around flood and disaster disclosure in their state.
ALABAMA — GRADE: F
Alabama has no statutory or regulatory requirements for disclosure of flood risk, federal flood insurance requirements or past flood damages. Sellers must disclose a “material defect or condition that affects health or safety [when] the defect is not known to or readily observable by the buyer,” and a jury found in the 2000 court case Cooper & Co. v. Lester that this applies to “misrepresentations and suppression of material facts” related to flooding.
ALASKA — GRADE: C
Sellers in Alaska must disclose the flood zone designation and any floods they are aware of on the property, as well as damage caused from “landslide, avalanche, high winds, fire, earthquake or other natural causes.” It also requires that sellers disclose water or leakage in the basement along with frozen pipes or drains.
ARIZONA — GRADE: F
Arizona state statute requires licensed real estate agents to notify buyers through a written affidavit whether or not the property is on a FEMA-designated floodplain. Arizona also offers a list of other items to disclose, including fissures and environmental hazards affecting, but this report is explicitly not mandatory. Licensed real estate agents must also disclose any water that is a “feature” of the property, and whether it fluctuates “substantially in size or volume.”
The in the 2011 court case Barton v. Boesen ruled that a real estate agent and his brokerage could not be held responsible for selling a new house with a defective, regularly leaking foundation because the buyers could not prove he “knew or should have known any information about the construction of the home.”
ARKANSAS — GRADE: F
Arkansas’s real estate commission explicitly states that no state law requires disclosure of specific information about their property, including floods and natural disasters. However, licensed real estate agents have to make “reasonable efforts” to obtain and disclose information that is “material to the value or desirability” of the property.
In the 2011 court case Worley v City of Jonesboro, buyers sued a seller and her brokerage for allegedly understating flooding issues ruled in favor of the seller, with a judge saying that sellers can only be held responsible for nondisclosure in “special circumstances” when they have knowledge a buyer is relying on incorrect or misleading information in a transaction.
CALIFORNIA — GRADE: C
California has a specific and detailed mandatory form that statutorily requires property sellers to disclose a variety of past damages or potential future hazards, including major flood damage, flood zones, historic forest fire risk and earthquake fault lines. Whether or not a property will require flood insurance does not need to be disclosed.
Two new laws passed in 2021 also require sellers to disclose certain fire hazard risks, including any fire hazard zone the property is part of and specific mitigation steps taken to defend against wildfires—everything from ember-resistant roof vents to non-combustible landscaping buffer zones.
COLORADO — GRADE: F
Real estate brokers are required by the state Department of Regulatory Agencies (DRE) to use state-approved disclosure forms “when appropriate.” While certain disclosures are codified in state law, disaster disclosure—whether a property has been damaged by “hail, wind, fire, flood or other casualty”— is not. The DRE vaguely warns on its website that real estate brokers are “responsible to make all required disclosures to all parties under applicable laws, rules and regulations governing real estate brokers.”
In Jehly v. Brown, a 2014 court case involving buyers who were not informed their newly constructed house was built in a floodplain, saw a judge rule in favor of the seller (who did not fill out the disaster disclosure form) despite the fact that the third-party builder of the home knew about the floodplain.
CONNECTICUT — GRADE: D
Connecticut requires by law that sellers disclose flood hazard and inland wetland designations along with fire and smoke damage, but does not mandate anything regarding past flooding events or damage, or whether flood insurance is required on that property.
DELAWARE — GRADE: C
Delaware has a mandatory seller disclosure form that includes flood damage, drainage problems and flood zone or wetland designations. Flood insurance, and the current annual premium cost, must also be disclosed when applicable. The state also requires sellers to disclose if the property owner is responsible for repairing nearby streets or sidewalks, and the estimated cost if they are.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA — GRADE: C
The district does have a mandatory disclosure form that asks if there are any exterior drainage problems or if there has been previous flood, fire or wind damage to a property. There are no requirements to disclose flood insurance or floodplain designations.
FLORIDA — GRADE: F
While Florida has no statutory requirements regarding flood or disaster disclosure, courts have sometimes found that sellers can be held liable for not disclosing “facts or conditions about the property that could have a substantial impact on its value or desirability.”
In the 1985 court decision in Johnson v. Davis, a seller was held responsible for not disclosing that a window regularly “gushed” water during rainstorms after they had told the buyer leaking issues had been mitigated, with the judge saying that enough omissions or misrepresentations by sellers could “amount to fraud in the legal sense.” On the other hand, a 1997 decision in Nelson v. Wiggs ruled in favor of a seller who had not disclosed regular property flooding, faulting the buyers for not asking questions of the seller or doing their own research.
GEORGIA — GRADE: F
Georgia has no codified or statutory mandatory disclosures for flooding. A 2010 appeals court ruling in Shaw v. Robertson faulted a homebuyer and their agent after they discovered significant flooding on a newly-purchased property, saying they “failed to act diligently” by doing more research or observing land conditions before making an offer.
HAWAII — GRADE: D
Sellers in Hawaii must disclose if a property is in a flood hazard area, but not any flood damage or flood insurance requirements. A mandatory form also asks sellers to disclose “material facts” that “are within the knowledge or control of the seller” or “can be observed from visible, accessible areas,” though how and when this would include flood damage or other natural disaster concerns is not defined.
IDAHO — GRADE: F
Idaho does not have disclosures for flood damage, flood zones or flood insurance, though a mandatory form does ask if there are “specific problems” with drainage or basement water. That form also has a space requiring “legal, physical, or other” disclosures, though it is not clear if flooding would be included.
A 1997 court ruling in Enright v. Jonassen held a seller partially responsible after he failed to disclose a floodplain designation after he was asked explicitly by the buyer about additional building restrictions on the property.
ILLINOIS — GRADE: C
Sellers must disclose in Illinois whether there has been flooding or leaking in a basement, or whether it is located in a flood plain or currently has flood insurance. Sellers must also disclose if the property has “earth stability defects.” Licensed real estate agents must also disclose “latent material adverse facts pertaining to the physical condition of the property that are actually known by the licensee and that could not be discovered by a reasonably diligent inspection,” but cannot be held liable for passing on false information from a client if they did not have “actual knowledge the information was false.”
INDIANA — GRADE: C
Sellers in Indiana must disclose if there is any damage to the property due to “wind, flood, termites or rodents,” along with floodplain designations and current flood insurance. That mandatory form also includes “hazardous conditions,” including mine shafts or radioactive material on site.
IOWA — GRADE: C
Iowa does have mandatory disclosures, though how they are presented can vary. A recommended form requires sellers to disclose past flooding, drainage, grading issues, or floodplain designations, along with “water or other problems” in the basement or foundation. Iowa law specifically allows sellers to draw up their own disclosure form as long as it “contain[s] at a minimum the information required by” the recommended form, and complies generally with state statutes.
NAR guidance warns that “no particular language is required provided all mandatory items are included” in a disclosure.
KANSAS — GRADE: F
Kansas generally requires that a seller discloses “[a]ny environmental hazards affecting the property which are required by law to be disclosed.” This does not explicitly mention flooding or any other natural disaster, though according to the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), courts have provided some precedent that sellers can be held responsible for certain material omissions, which might include flooding.
In the 2013 court case Stechschulte v. Jennings, which involved a seller who had misrepresented repairs he made to windows—leaving behind a can of paint expressly designed to conceal water damage that buyers discovered—the court ruled the seller could be held liable. The seller’s real estate agent, who was also his fiance could be held liable as well, the court ruled, even though she did not live in the home at the time and claimed she had no direct knowledge of leaks or flooding.
KENTUCKY — GRADE: C
Kentucky requires mandatory disclosure of “draining, flooding, or grading,” as well as its flood hazard designation and flood insurance. It also requires sellers to disclose nearby bodies of water adjoining the property. Kentucky also sets specific sanctions against licensed real estate agents who do not disclose these things, including revoking licenses and levying fines of up to $1,000.
LOUISIANA — GRADE: A
As a state that has seen some of the worst flooding disasters in recent memory, Louisiana’s disclosures are extensive. The state’s mandatory disclosure form includes any past “flooding, water intrusion, accumulation or drainage problem” as well as its nature and frequency. This information must be provided for every structure on the property, and explicitly includes the time period before the seller owned the property. Flood designations and hazard zones must be disclosed, and the seller must also provide the source and date for these designations—FEMA flood maps, surveys or other third-party oversight. Whether the property is in a wetland, or even has a pending wetland designation, must also be included in the form.
Apart from floods, sellers must also disclose “property damage, including, but not limited to, fire, wind, hail, lightning,” that occurred both before and during the seller’s ownership of the property.
MAINE — GRADE: F
Maine has no mandatory disclosure form, and state statute simply states that that sellers “shall disclose in a timely manner to a prospective buyer all material defects pertaining to the physical condition of the property of which the seller agent knew or, acting in a reasonable manner, should have known” without mentioning floods. Seller’s agents are “not obligated to discover latent defects in the property,” and cannot be held liable if they pass on false information that was provided by a client.
The 1999 court case Kezer v. Mark Stimson Assocs. held that sellers and their agents could not be held liable for failing to disclose neighborhood environmental hazards that had not significantly affected the property in question.
MARYLAND — GRADE: D
While Maryland does have a mandatory disclosure form, the only flood-related item asks if the property is located in a “flood zone, conservation area, wetland area, [or] Chesapeake Bay critical area.” The form also asks for the disclosure of “material defects,” though whether that applies to flooding or flood damage is not explicit.
MASSACHUSETTS — GRADE: F
State statute requires that a seller “disclose known material defects in real property” but provides no other guidance on floods and no mandatory form.
In 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Court case Grossman v. Pouy saw a seller leave blank sections on a voluntary disclosure form related to roof and other structural deficiencies when the roof needed to be immediately replaced and walls were filled with mold and rodents. The court in this case found that failure to disclose serious defects that rose to the level of fraud could render sellers liable.
MICHIGAN — GRADE: C
Michigan does have mandatory disclosures, including for flood insurance, drainage or grading issues, and any “major damage to the property from fire, wind, floods or landslides.” Interestingly, the state explicitly allows counties or towns to add their own additional forms or disclosures, meaning some areas have potentially more stringent flood disclosure requirements for sellers or their agents.
MINNESOTA — GRADE: D
Though Minnesota does not have a mandatory disclosure form, state statute requires that a licensed real estate agent “disclose to a prospective purchaser all material facts of which the licensee is aware, which could adversely and significantly affect an ordinary purchaser’s use or enjoyment of the property, or any intended use of the property of which the licensee is aware.” According to NAR, this would include flooding or flood damage.
Ghost hunters, however, will be disappointed to learn that Minnesota explicitly exempts sellers from disclosing if there was any “perceived paranormal activity” on the property.
MISSISSIPPI — GRADE: A
Boasting one of the most comprehensive mandatory flood disclosure laws alongside Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, Mississippi requires sellers to detail, including dates and descriptions, of “damage to any portion of the physical structure resulting from fire, windstorm, hail, tornados, hurricane or any other natural disaster.” Additionally, the form asks for any “malfunction or defects” with windows or other infrastructure related to leaking. Flood plan hazard designations, including the FEMA map number must be disclosed, as well as current flood insurance and the price of the current premium. If the property has experienced standing water in the yard for more than 48 yards after a rain, that must also be disclosed.
Sellers must also detail any water damage regardless of source or reason, as well as steps taken to remedy those issues.
MISSOURI — GRADE: F
There are no mandatory flood disclosures or required forms in Missouri. Though licensed real estate agents must “disclose to any customer all adverse material facts actually known or that should have been known by the licensee,” they also “owe no duty to conduct an independent inspection or discover any adverse material facts for the benefit of the customer.”
In Keefhaver v. Kimbrell—a 2001 court case in which a buyer accused a seller of understating flood risk and basement leaks—the court ruled in favor of the buyer, even though she had only spent 30 minutes on the property before making an offer and waived her right to an inspection. The buyer was entitled to rely on the seller’s representations, the court ruled, due to their superior knowledge of facts that were “latent and…not easily ascertainable.”
MONTANA — GRADE: F
Though there are no mandatory forms or disclosures required of sellers, Montana state statute dictates that sellers must disclose “adverse material facts,” and defines those as “a fact that should be recognized by a broker or salesperson as being of enough significance as to affect a person’s decision to enter into a contract to buy or sell real property.” At the same time, a licensed real estate agent must “ascertain all pertinent facts concerning each property in any transaction…so that the licensee may fulfill the obligation to avoid error, exaggeration, misrepresentation or concealment of pertinent facts.”
A 2015 court ruling in Rutterud v. Gilbraith stated that that a real estate agent could not be held liable for failing to investigate a mold problem caused by known flooding under that law.
NEBRASKA — GRADE: C
State law requires sellers to provide a written statement that “substantially” follows the format of a standard disclosure form, which includes whether the property is in a flood hazard zone, a “floodway,” or if there are any “flooding, drainage or grading problems.” The law also requires disclosure of “adverse material facts,” which NAR states would likely include other flood or natural disaster related issues.
NEVADA — GRADE: C
Nevada requires a mandatory disclosure form for sellers that includes “previous or current moisture conditions and/or water damage,” along with “drainage, flooding, water seepage or high-water table.” Sellers must also disclose floodplain designations, along with “earth stability” and other landslide or earthquake-related issues.
NEW HAMPSHIRE — GRADE: F
The “Live Free or Die” state unsurprisingly has minimal requirements for seller disclosures around flooding. Real estate agents must disclose “material physical, regulatory, mechanical or on-site environmental condition[s] affecting the subject property of which the licensee has actual knowledge,” but the law explicitly states that it “shall not create an affirmative obligation on the part of the licensee to investigate material defects.”
Snierson v. Scruton, a 2000 court Supreme Court Case, ruled that a seller who used a voluntary disclosure form could still be held liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation over septic tank leaching, even though that form “expressly warned that it did not constitute a warranty and was not a substitute for a buyer’s inspection.” The buyer still had to prove, however, that the seller demonstrated “conscious indifference to [the] truth with the intention to cause another to rely upon it.”
NEW JERSEY — GRADE: F
New Jersey’s code requires licensed real estate agents to provide a disclosure form that includes whether the property has flood or drainage problems or is located in a flood hazard. Agents are also specifically empowered to add or request more disclosures when appropriate, and are exempted from liability if they made a “reasonable and diligent inquiry” to discover if information given to them by a seller was false. There is no requirement that unlicensed sellers provide this disclosure.
The 1974 court case Weintraub v. Krobatsch held a seller and their agent responsible for not disclosing a cockroach infestation, which the FEMA panel posited could also apply to non-disclosure of flooding.
NEW MEXICO — GRADE: F
New Mexico requires licensed agents and brokers to disclose “any adverse material facts actually known by the associate broker or qualifying broker about the property or the transaction,” but makes no mention of flood or disasters and has no mandatory forms.
A 1984 court ruling in Gouveia v. Citicorp Person-to-Person Fin. Ctr., Inc. determined a broker could be held liable in a case where a property was listed as “All Top Shape” despite the fact that parts of the home had no foundation, could not be heated and had other major structural deficiencies. In this case, the broker had not even interacted directly with the buyer, but had simply provided a description of the property to an MLS.
NEW YORK — GRADE: F
New York’s mandatory flood disclosure law has an odd loophole: the penalty for not including the disclosure form is a paltry $500 credit due at closing. Both NAR and FEMA found that many attorneys have advised home sellers to simply pay this penalty rather than disclose potentially deal-sinking information about standing water on the property, historic flooding issues or floodplain designations. A bill currently stalled in the state legislature would repeal the $500 penalty system and add significant new flood disclosure requirements.
Simply paying the penalty, however, does not exempt a seller or agent from being held liable for “active concealment of a defect,” according to the 2018 court case Pesce v. Leimsider, in which a seller allegedly concealed water damage during a sale and inspection. Another court case in 2005 (Gabberty v Pisarz) in which a seller withheld information about chronic basement flooding ruled that a buyer can be awarded damages when there is a “willful failure” to disclose these things.
NORTH CAROLINA — GRADE: D
North Carolina does have a mandatory disclosure form that asks narrowly if the property is “subject to a flood hazard or…located in a federally-designated flood hazard area.” It also asks about water seepage or standing water in the basement, but does not require any disclosures related to flood damage or historic flooding.
NORTH DAKOTA — GRADE: C
State statute in North Dakota requires significant disclosures around flooding, including whether it was ever damaged by a flood, has drainage issues or is in a flood zone. It also asks whether the property has been “damaged by fire, smoke, wind, floods, hail, snow, frozen pipes or broken water line…condensation or ice buildup,” and requires explanations for those issues.
A 1985 court case (Holcomb v. Zinke) also explicitly exempted certain real estate transactions from the “buyer beware” doctrine of common law, ruling that “passive concealment” by a seller could constitute fraud.
OHIO — GRADE: C
A mandatory Ohio disclosure form asks if there are previous or current water leaks, rain gutter issues, water accumulation, moisture, or other material damage related to flooding or any other water intrusion. Fire or smoke damage is also included, and any mitigation or repairs over the last five years to address these things must also be divulged. It also requires disclosure of historic flooding, as well as if the property is in a designated floodplain or Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Zone.
OKLAHOMA — GRADE: A
Any seller who has occupied a property in Oklahoma must fill out a mandatory disclosure form and must disclose a variety of specific flood zone designations, flood insurance, historic flooding and interior leakage or drainage issues. They must also disclose “major fire, tornado, hail, earthquake or wind damage.” An additional stipulation requires licensed real estate agents to disclose property defects they know of that are not stated on the seller’s disclosure form, and they can be disciplined by the state if they fail to do so.
OREGON — GRADE: C
Oregon has a mandatory form that must be proactively delivered to each person that makes an offer on a property. That disclosure includes whether there has been “material damage to the property or any of the structure from fire, wind, floods, beach movements, earthquake, expansive soils or landslides.” There are also questions as to floodplain designation or “geologic hazard zone.” There is no requirement to disclose flood insurance mandates, though the form does advise buyers that any floodplain designation could result in the need for insurance.
PENNSYLVANIA — GRADE: C
A mandatory form in Pennsylvania asks sellers about leaky roofs, basement leakage or dampness or repairs to mitigate those issues. It also requires floodplain disclosure, as well as past or present flooding issues affecting the property generally.
RHODE ISLAND — GRADE: D
Rhode Island mandates certain disclosures without providing a form. Among the required information is the vague directive that sellers include “Basement (Seepage, Leaks, Cracks, etc.)” along with “Flood Plain (Flood Insurance)” and “Fire,” without further defining what any of this means. Location of nearby wetlands, or if the property is on wetlands, must also be disclosed. .
A 2003 court ruling in Stebbins v. Wells, involving undisclosed severe erosion on a coastal property, stated that sellers and their agents could be held liable for “passive concealment” in some circumstances and explicitly pushed back against the “buyer beware” doctrine.
SOUTH CAROLINA — GRADE: C
South Carolina’s mandatory disclosure form includes specific statutory language requiring sellers to report flood problems, flood hazards or designations, all FEMA claims and the dates they were filed, as well as current flood insurance. Fire, smoke or other water “problems” must be divulged as well. It also requires a real estate agent to disclose known “adverse facts” about the property even if the seller omitted them.
South Carolina also explicitly allows waiving all these disclosure requirements as long as both parties agree to do so in writing. Certain time-sharing and vacation home plans are also exempt from disclosure.
SOUTH DAKOTA — GRADE: C
South Dakota has a mandatory disclosure form laid out in state statute that includes “water penetration” issues, standing water on the property, roof leaks and any water damage that was repaired or not repaired. Sellers must also disclose previous flood insurance claims made on the property.
TENNESSEE — GRADE: B
Tennessee offers a disclosure form that is technically not mandatory, but state statute warns that any real estate transaction must include all items and provisions laid out in that form. Those items and provisions include “flooding, drainage, or grading problems,” flood insurance requirements, and property damage from fire, earthquakes, floods or landslides, as well as if that damage has been repaired. Sellers must also disclose any recent surveys conducted of the property, which could include information about flooding or flood risk.
TEXAS — GRADE: A
A state that has seen more than its share of flooding and disasters, Texas’s disclosure laws require comprehensive declarations regarding flooding and other adverse natural events. Water damage, fire damage, flooding from a “controlled or emergency release” of a reservoir, or from natural flood event, and six specific floodplain designations must all be disclosed by law. Sellers must also divulge current flood insurance and past flood insurance claims. Additionally, the law explicitly allows a buyer to terminate a contract if the seller does not provide the mandatory disclosures when entering into a purchase agreement.
UTAH — GRADE: F
With no flood or mandatory disclosure rules, Utah only generally asks real estate agents to divulge “known material facts” regarding “a defect in the property.” A 2002 court case involving a real estate agent who was selling property owned by her husband found that the agent and her brokerage were liable for failing to disclose “chocolate pudding-like” mud that made the land untenable for development.
VERMONT — GRADE: F
There are no mandatory flood disclosure forms or requirements in Vermont. A state statute regarding “unprofessional conduct” by licensed real estate agents allows the state to discipline those who fail “to fully disclose…all material facts within the licensee’s knowledge concerning the property being sold.”
A 1998 court case (Carter v. Gugliuzzi) held a seller’s brokerage responsible for failing to disclose regular dangerous wind on a property, even though the broker was only aware of this fact because he happened to live in the area.
VIRGINIA — GRADE: F
The FEMA panel excoriated Virginia’s flood disclosure laws as “the opposite of buyer friendly.” While the state does have a mandatory disclosure form, that form explicitly exonerates the seller from disclosing flood-related items and warns the buyer to “exercise whatever due diligence they deem necessary” to learn about flood risks, flooding or flood designations on the property. An update to the relevant statute scheduled to go into effect in 2022 will “make available” a flood information sheet to buyers that speaks generally about flooding and insurance requirements under federal law.
In the 2015 court case Devine v. Buki, a seller was held liable for fraudulently lying about leaks and water damage in the foundation of a 200-year-old house, with a judge rescinding the sale and awarding the buyer $100,000 in attorney’s fees.
WASHINGTON — GRADE: C
Washington’s disclosure rules are applied differently to “improved” residential real estate—properties that have a structure or structures on them—and “unimproved” properties that do not. For both types of properties, sellers must disclose flooding events, material damage from “floods, beach movements, earthquake, expansive soils or landslides” and “shorelines, wetlands, floodplains or critical areas” on the property. “Improved” properties must also include basement flooding events, while “unimproved” properties must specifically disclose federal floodplain designations.
WEST VIRGINIA — GRADE: F
West Virginia does not even have a state law that generally governs real estate disclosures—though at least two have been introduced by the legislature since 1996. Thacker v. Tyree, a 1982 court case provided some precedent that “defects or conditions which substantially affect the value or habitability of the property” must be disclosed by a seller, and another court case (Darrisaw v. Old Colony Realty Co.) in 1997 applied that doctrine in part to a home with an undivulged “high water problem.” That ruling added that a misrepresentation like this must be proven a “substantial factor in inducing the purchaser to buy the property” in order to hold the seller liable.
WISCONSIN — GRADE: D
Wisconsin has two mandatory disclosure forms: one for vacant land containing no buildings, and one for property with dwelling units. The form dealing with inhabited structures only asks if the property is in a floodplain, wetland or shoreland zoning area, along with a specific question about basement defects which “may include items such as flooding.” The vacant land disclosure form includes the same floodplain disclosures, but additionally asks if the property has suffered “material damage from fire, wind, flood, earthquake, expansive soil, erosion or landslide,” or if there is “water diversion, water intrusion or other irritants emanating from neighboring property.”
WYOMING —GRADE: F
With no mandatory form or flood disclosures, licensed real estate agents must still disclose “adverse material facts actually known by the licensee” to buyers, including “material defects in the property and any environmental hazards.”
In the 2006 court case Reed v. Cloninger the court stated that buyers could pursue legal claims against real estate agents “for misrepresenting the condition of the property, provided they knew or reasonably should have known of the defect.”
Jesse Williams is RISMedia’s associate online editor. Email him your real estate news ideas to jwilliams@rismedia.com.
