An act relating to flooding disclosures when conveying real estate
H.827 amends Vermont’s real estate disclosure law to address flooding information in property sales. Under current disclosure requirements, a seller must provide a flood insurance rate map or notice that one is unavailable, disclose whether the property was subject to flooding or flood damage while the seller possessed it, and disclose whether flood insurance is maintained or required. The bill adds a new option for a seller who has never physically resided on the property to satisfy the flooding disclosure requirement by giving written notice that the seller did not live on the property and therefore cannot affirm whether flooding or flood damage occurred during the seller’s ownership.
The bill also makes clear that this alternative disclosure does not excuse a seller who actually knows the property was flooded or damaged. In those cases, the seller must still disclose that information. The act would take effect on passage.
The bill would amend 27 V.S.A. § 380, Vermont’s statute governing disclosures in the conveyance of real estate. Its practical effect is to create a limited safe-harbor for non-occupant sellers—such as landlords, investors, estates, or other owners who never lived on the property—by allowing them to disclose lack of personal knowledge instead of making an affirmative statement about flooding history they may not be able to verify. It preserves existing disclosure obligations where the seller has actual knowledge of flooding or flood damage, so buyer protections remain in place for known conditions.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a technical, consumer-disclosure measure rather than a controversial policy change. Its framing suggests an effort to make the law more workable for sellers who lack firsthand knowledge while still ensuring buyers receive flood-related information. No formal vote history or public discussion is provided here, so there is no evidence of organized support or opposition in the available record.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between easing disclosure burdens for non-resident sellers and preserving meaningful flood-risk transparency for buyers. Consumer advocates or buyer-side interests could be concerned that allowing a seller to disclaim knowledge may reduce the usefulness of disclosures, especially in flood-prone areas. On the other hand, sellers who never occupied the property may argue that the current law requires them to attest to facts they cannot reasonably know. The bill addresses that concern by limiting the disclaimer to sellers without personal residence on the property and by preserving disclosure where actual knowledge exists.