REED vs KING California Court of Appeals, 1983 FACTS: Doris Reed purchased a house from Robert King under the notion that premises were in good condition and fit for a woman her age. King and his real estate agents did not inform Reed about a gruesome murder of four that happened in the house ten years. Doris found out about the murders after being informed by her neighbors. Also, the neighbors were asked not to inform her about the murders as it will decrease the value of the house because of its past. Reed paid $76,000, but due to the tragic events it is only worth $65,000. Reed is suing and seeking recession and damages. ISSUE: Does Reed’s pleading state a cause of action. DECISION: The trial court perceived the defect in Reed’s complaint to be a failure to allege concealment of a material fact. REASON: In general, a seller of real property has a duty to disclose: "where the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property which are known or accessible only to him and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.