Idaho Supreme Court Ruling Highlights the Importance of Property Disclosures

A recent Idaho Supreme Court decision is drawing attention to the responsibilities of home sellers and the importance of accurate property-condition disclosures.

In McOmber v. Thompson, decided July 22, 2025, the Idaho Supreme Court considered whether sellers had failed to adequately disclose problems involving water intrusion, mold, dry rot and other property conditions.

The court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the sellers, finding that the evidence did not establish that the sellers had knowingly made false or misleading disclosures.

The decision provides an important reminder for Idaho homeowners and real-estate professionals: known property conditions should be accurately disclosed, and buyers should carefully review those disclosures as part of the home-purchase process.

What Happened in the Case?

Jonathan and Angela McOmber purchased a home in Rexburg, Idaho, in 2019.

After purchasing the property, they began remodeling and discovered various problems, including water damage, dry rot and mold. They also later discovered that an ice dam had caused water intrusion through the roof.

Before the sale, the sellers completed Idaho’s property-condition disclosure form.

Among other things, they indicated that the property had experienced previous water intrusion and described a drainage problem that had been fixed. They also disclosed previous mold-related damage and repairs.

The buyers later argued that the disclosures were incomplete or misleading and brought legal claims against the sellers.

What Did the Idaho Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court did not create a new requirement that sellers disclose every possible defect regardless of whether they know about it.

Instead, the court examined whether the sellers had complied with Idaho’s existing Property Condition Disclosure Act and whether their statements were false or misleading based on the evidence presented.

The court concluded that the buyers had not established a genuine dispute showing that the sellers knowingly failed to disclose additional defects.

The court therefore affirmed summary judgment in favor of the sellers on the disclosure and fraud claims.

Idaho’s Existing Disclosure Requirements

Idaho’s Property Condition Disclosure Act requires sellers of covered residential property to provide certain information about known conditions of the property.

Idaho REALTORS® explains that sellers are required to make disclosures concerning specified property conditions and may also have an obligation to amend their disclosure if they discover that information previously provided has changed before closing.

This distinction is important.

A seller is not necessarily guaranteeing that a property is free of defects. Instead, the disclosure process is intended to provide buyers with information about known conditions that may affect the property.

What This Means for Sellers

The case provides a practical reminder for Idaho homeowners preparing to sell.

Sellers should:

• Carefully review the property disclosure form.
• Answer questions accurately.
• Disclose known problems covered by the form.
• Keep records of significant repairs and remediation.
• Update disclosures when required if circumstances change before closing.
• Avoid making statements about a property that they know are inaccurate.

Idaho REALTORS® notes that Idaho law requires sellers to amend previous disclosures when they discover that information in the original statement has changed before closing.

What This Means for Buyers

The decision is also a reminder that buyers should not rely exclusively on the seller’s disclosure form.

A buyer should consider conducting appropriate due diligence, which may include:

• A professional home inspection
• Reviewing repair records
• Asking questions about previous water damage
• Examining drainage and moisture conditions
• Reviewing available permits and property records
• Evaluating the roof, foundation and other major systems

In the McOmber case, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the buyer did not order an independent property inspection.

A property disclosure form and a professional inspection serve different purposes. Buyers should understand the limitations of each.

Why Water and Drainage Problems Matter

Water intrusion can create expensive problems for homeowners.

Issues involving drainage, roofs, foundations, basements, moisture and plumbing can potentially lead to mold, structural damage and significant repair costs.

For this reason, both buyers and sellers should take water-related disclosures seriously.

A seller who knows about a significant property condition should not assume that simply describing a problem as “fixed” eliminates the need to provide accurate information required by the disclosure form.

At the same time, buyers should investigate issues that are identified in the disclosure rather than assuming that a previous repair guarantees that the problem can never return.

What This Means for Real-Estate Professionals

Real-estate professionals also play an important role in the disclosure process.

Idaho REALTORS® notes that brokers have disclosure obligations concerning known adverse material facts, and whether a particular fact qualifies as an adverse material fact can depend on the circumstances.

This makes careful documentation and communication particularly important during a transaction.

Agents should encourage clients to obtain appropriate legal advice when a complicated disclosure issue arises rather than attempting to resolve a potentially significant legal question themselves.

A Reminder for Homeowners

The McOmber decision does not mean that Idaho homeowners are responsible for discovering and reporting every hidden defect in a property.

Instead, the case reinforces the importance of accurate disclosures based on the seller’s knowledge and the requirements of Idaho law.

For buyers, it reinforces another important principle: a disclosure form should be one part of a broader due-diligence process.

Final Takeaway

The Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in McOmber v. Thompson does not represent a sweeping new expansion of Idaho seller-disclosure law.

Instead, the July 2025 ruling provides a useful example of how Idaho’s existing disclosure requirements can apply when buyers later discover property problems.

For sellers, the message is straightforward: provide accurate information about known property conditions and properly update disclosures when required.

For buyers, the lesson is equally important: review disclosures carefully and conduct appropriate independent due diligence before completing a purchase.

Understanding these responsibilities can help reduce misunderstandings and disputes while giving buyers and sellers greater confidence during a real-estate transaction.