42 U.S.C. § 4852d

Disclosure of information concerning lead upon transfer of residential property

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Lead disclosure in purchase and sale or lease of target housing(1) Lead-based paint hazardsNot later than 2 years after October 28, 1992, the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate regulations under this section for the disclosure of lead-based paint hazards in target housing which is offered for sale or lease. The regulations shall require that, before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under any contract to purchase or lease the housing, the seller or lessor shall—(A) provide the purchaser or lessee with a lead hazard information pamphlet, as prescribed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2686];(B) disclose to the purchaser or lessee the presence of any known lead-based paint, or any known lead-based paint hazards, in such housing and provide to the purchaser or lessee any lead hazard evaluation report available to the seller or lessor; and(C) permit the purchaser a 10-day period (unless the parties mutually agree upon a different period of time) to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint hazards.(2) Contract for purchase and saleRegulations promulgated under this section shall provide that every contract for the purchase and sale of any interest in target housing shall contain a Lead Warning Statement and a statement signed by the purchaser that the purchaser has—(A) read the Lead Warning Statement and understands its contents;(B) received a lead hazard information pamphlet; and(C) had a 10-day opportunity (unless the parties mutually agreed upon a different period of time) before becoming obligated under the contract to purchase the housing to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint hazards.(3) Contents of lead warning statement

The Lead Warning Statement shall contain the following text printed in large type on a separate sheet of paper attached to the contract:

“Every purchaser of any interest in residential real property on which a residential dwelling was built prior to 1978 is notified that such property may present exposure to lead from lead-based paint that may place young children at risk of developing lead poisoning. Lead poisoning in young children may produce permanent neurological damage, including learning disabilities, reduced intelligence quotient, behavioral problems, and impaired memory. Lead poisoning also poses a particular risk to pregnant women. The seller of any interest in residential real property is required to provide the buyer with any information on lead-based paint hazards from risk assessments or inspections in the seller’s possession and notify the buyer of any known lead-based paint hazards. A risk assessment or inspection for possible lead-based paint hazards is recommended prior to purchase.”.

(4) Compliance assurance

Whenever a seller or lessor has entered into a contract with an agent for the purpose of selling or leasing a unit of target housing, the regulations promulgated under this section shall require the agent, on behalf of the seller or lessor, to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.

(5) Promulgation

A suit may be brought against the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 20 of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2619] to compel promulgation of the regulations required under this section and the Federal district court shall have jurisdiction to order such promulgation.

(b) Penalties for violations(1) Monetary penalty

Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this section shall be subject to civil money penalties in accordance with the provisions of section 3545 of this title.

(2) Action by Secretary

The Secretary is authorized to take such lawful action as may be necessary to enjoin any violation of this section.

(3) Civil liability

Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee in an amount equal to 3 times the amount of damages incurred by such individual.

(4) Costs

In any civil action brought for damages pursuant to paragraph (3), the appropriate court may award court costs to the party commencing such action, together with reasonable attorney fees and any expert witness fees, if that party prevails.

(5) Prohibited act

It shall be a prohibited act under section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2689] for any person to fail or refuse to comply with a provision of this section or with any rule or order issued under this section. For purposes of enforcing this section under the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.], the penalty for each violation applicable under section 16 of that Act [15 U.S.C. 2615] shall not be more than $10,000.

Nothing in this section shall affect the validity or enforceability of any sale or contract for the purchase and sale or lease of any interest in residential real property or any loan, loan agreement, mortgage, or lien made or arising in connection with a mortgage loan, nor shall anything in this section create a defect in title.

(d) Effective date

The regulations under this section shall take effect 3 years after October 28, 1992.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title X, § 1018, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3910.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Toxic Substances Control Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(5), is Pub. L. 94–469, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2003, which is classified generally to chapter 53 (§ 2601 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of Title 15 and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 67 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Robin Lee Stanfill v. John T. Mountain, 301 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robin Lee Stanfill v. John T. Mountain, 301 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 14× “The Stanfills also alleged that the Defendants violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and failed to provide the Stanfills a lead disclosure statement or lead hazard information pamphlet as required by 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. All the Defendants moved for summary…”

Randall v. LACONIA, NH, 679 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). · cites it 14× “The sole count in the complaint alleged that the City had violated 42 U.S.C. § 4852d, which requires the disclosure of lead-based paint hazards in connection with the sale of homes built before 1978.”

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 18× “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

Vidiksis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 9× “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. According to the argument, the regulations promulgated by the EPA did not fulfill this purpose.”

Brown v. Maple3, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 10× “To accomplish these objectives, section 4852d of the statute directs the promulgation of regulations “for the disclosure of lead-based paint hazards in target housing which is offered for sale or lease” (42 USC § 4852d [a] [1]). This disclosure provision requires, in pertinent…”

Wallace v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 15× “, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Gold (“Micki Gold”), and the North Providence Housing Authority (“NPHA”) (collectively “Defendants”) asserting claims for violations of the Residential Lead-Based Paint *255 Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (“RLPHRA” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 4852d et seq.,…”

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 10× “Failure to State a Claim In order for plaintiffs to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 4852d and 40 C.F.R. 745.100 et seq.”

Morris v. Flaig, 511 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y 2007). · cites it 4× “Under the statute, “[a]ny person who knowingly violates the provisions of [42 U.S.C. § 4852d] shall be jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee in an amount equal to 3 times the amount of damages incurred by such individual.”

Erwin v. Roe, 928 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs sought damages and moved for summary judgment on the basis that the defendants knowingly violated the disclosure requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. Id. The defendants argued that civil liability could not be imposed absent evidence of their intent or knowledge of…”

Roberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(3). It is this provision that we consider here.”

Ayres v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 551 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 6× “§ 2688 nor 42 U.S.C. § 4852d mandates the right of recovery for damages from the Government.”

Smith v. Coldwell Banker Real Est. Servs., Inc., 122 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 8× “(“Defendant Agents”) knowingly violated several sections of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4852d by failing to provide a lead paint report and obtain a signed disclosure statement from the plaintiff purchasers before…”

Show all 67 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(3) — 1 case

Cudjoe v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 426 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2005).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a) — 6 cases

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Kan. 2000). “Failure to State a Claim In order for plaintiffs to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 4852d and 40 C.F.R. 745.100 et seq.”

Cudjoe v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 426 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2005).

McCormick v. Kissel, 458 F. Supp. 2d 944 (S.D. Ind. 2006).

Nat'l Multi Hous. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 292 F.3d 232 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(1) — 7 cases

Robin Lee Stanfill v. John T. Mountain, 301 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. 2009). “The Stanfills also alleged that the Defendants violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and failed to provide the Stanfills a lead disclosure statement or lead hazard information pamphlet as required by 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. All the Defendants moved for summary…”

Randall v. LACONIA, NH, 679 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). “The sole count in the complaint alleged that the City had violated 42 U.S.C. § 4852d, which requires the disclosure of lead-based paint hazards in connection with the sale of homes built before 1978.”

Erwin v. Roe, 928 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Plaintiffs sought damages and moved for summary judgment on the basis that the defendants knowingly violated the disclosure requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. Id. The defendants argued that civil liability could not be imposed absent evidence of their intent or knowledge of…”

Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 121 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1997).

LB III v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (W.D. Ky. 2004).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(1)(A) — 1 case

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(1)(B) — 3 cases

Page v. Corvias Grp., LLC (E.D.N.C. 2021).

Young v. Haviland Prop. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026).

Kearney v. Elias (D.N.H. 2008).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(2) — 3 cases

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

Wallace v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D.R.I. 2004). “, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Gold (“Micki Gold”), and the North Providence Housing Authority (“NPHA”) (collectively “Defendants”) asserting claims for violations of the Residential Lead-Based Paint *255 Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (“RLPHRA” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 4852d et seq.,…”

Sáez Navarro v. Banco Santander, 15 T.C.A. 891 (2009).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(3) — 5 cases

Ayres v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 551 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “§ 2688 nor 42 U.S.C. § 4852d mandates the right of recovery for damages from the Government.”

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

G.M.M. v. Kimpson, 92 F. Supp. 3d 53 (E.D.N.Y 2015).

Benton v. Berkshire Richmond LLC (E.D. Va. 2024).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(4) — 6 cases

Vidiksis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. According to the argument, the regulations promulgated by the EPA did not fulfill this purpose.”

Griffin v. Bruner, 793 N.E.2d 974 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).

Flowers v. ERA Unique Real Est., Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

G.M.M. v. Kimpson, 92 F. Supp. 3d 53 (E.D.N.Y 2015).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(5) — 1 case

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(l) — 14 cases

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

Johnson v. City of Detroit, 319 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(l)(A) — 2 cases

Morris v. Flaig, 511 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “Under the statute, “[a]ny person who knowingly violates the provisions of [42 U.S.C. § 4852d] shall be jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee in an amount equal to 3 times the amount of damages incurred by such individual.”

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(a)(l)(B) — 2 cases

Vidiksis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. According to the argument, the regulations promulgated by the EPA did not fulfill this purpose.”

N'Jai v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 705 F. App'x 126 (3rd Cir. 2017).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b) — 5 cases

Smith v. Coldwell Banker Real Est. Servs., Inc., 122 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2000). “(“Defendant Agents”) knowingly violated several sections of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4852d by failing to provide a lead paint report and obtain a signed disclosure statement from the plaintiff purchasers before…”

Ayres v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 2005).

Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 121 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1997).

Kearney v. Elias (D.N.H. 2008).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(1) — 2 cases

Cudjoe v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 426 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2005).

LB III v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (W.D. Ky. 2004).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(3) — 26 cases

Roberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011). “” 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(3). It is this provision that we consider here.”

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Kan. 2000). “Failure to State a Claim In order for plaintiffs to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 4852d and 40 C.F.R. 745.100 et seq.”

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(3)(4)(6) — 1 case

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Kan. 2000). “Failure to State a Claim In order for plaintiffs to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 4852d and 40 C.F.R. 745.100 et seq.”

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(5) — 5 cases

Vidiksis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. According to the argument, the regulations promulgated by the EPA did not fulfill this purpose.”

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Kan. 2000). “Failure to State a Claim In order for plaintiffs to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 4852d and 40 C.F.R. 745.100 et seq.”

United States v. Michael Moshe Shimshoni, 631 F. App'x 788 (11th Cir. 2015).

Cudjoe v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 426 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2005).

United States v. Andersen, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (N.D. Ind. 2014).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(8) — 1 case

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(c) — 2 cases

Young v. Haviland Prop. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(d) — 3 cases

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Kan. 2000). “Failure to State a Claim In order for plaintiffs to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 4852d and 40 C.F.R. 745.100 et seq.”

Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. The statute states that HUD and the EPA “shall,” no later than October 28, 1994, “promulgate regulations .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.