Opinion ID: 799464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act

Text: Randall filed suit under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856, and in particular under § 4852d, which allows for a private cause of action for three times the amount of any damages incurred by the buyer, id. § 4852d(b)(3). The Act provides for the promulgation of regulations that require a seller to disclose to the purchaser ... the presence of any known lead-based paint, or any known lead-based paint hazards, in such housing and provide to the purchaser ... any lead hazard evaluation report available to the seller. Id. § 4852d(a)(1)(B). Such regulations were promulgated. See 24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a) (Housing and Urban Development); 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(a) (Environmental Protection Agency). The City does not attempt to argue that it met these requirements, nor does it appear that it truthfully could make this argument. It is undisputed that prior to selling Randall the property the City did not complete the disclosure form, turn over the Alpha report, or otherwise inform Randall about the lead-based paint hazards in the home. The only question is whether the City's non-compliance should be excused on timeliness-of-suit grounds.