Two Showings Mentioned the Smell. The Disclosure Didn't.

Two showings in, the feedback comes back. One buyer's agent writes that the odor is 'in whole home.' Another says their buyer 'struggled with the smell of cat/pet urine.' A Wisconsin appeals decision from this month is a reminder that showing feedback can end up being read closely, long after closing.

What the court looked at

In an unpublished per curiam decision filed October 20, 2026 (Hansen v. Kramer, No. 2025AP1399), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals looked at a home bought for $650,000 in 2023. According to the opinion, the buyers waived inspection, and the seller's condition report said she wasn't aware of defects, including defects caused by animals.

The record described in the opinion included two showing comments passed to the listing agent: one about odor 'in whole home especially office,' another that a buyer 'struggled with the smell of cat/pet urine.' The carpets had been professionally cleaned twice in two months around the listing, and windows and the patio door were open during the buyers' visits. The buyers noticed a strong odor at the final walk-through; the seller said it was likely limited to a bathroom near the garage, and they closed. After moving in, they reported urine stains and odor throughout and removed the carpet and padding.

The trial court ruled for the seller on everything. The appeals court split it: it agreed the buyers hadn't shown the odor was a statutory 'defect' for the condition report, but it reversed on claims that the seller failed to disclose a material fact and concealed the odor, and sent those back for further proceedings. It also held the buyers hadn't waived their claims by waiving inspection, on this record. These are allegations; the court didn't decide that anyone did anything wrong.

The listing agent said she didn't smell cat urine at her pre-listing walk-through. Her claims were stayed until the appeal is decided, and no court has ruled on them.

One more note: the decision is unpublished and per curiam. Under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(3), it can't be cited as precedent, so we're sharing it as a real-world example, not as a rule.

A note on location: this case comes from Wisconsin, not California. Disclosure laws, forms and agent duties differ by state, so we're sharing it as an educational example of how a file can unfold, not as a statement of California law or a rule that applies to your transaction. Rules differ by state, and that state's law doesn't govern California transactions.

Why this one is worth a second look

Showing feedback lives in emails, texts and showing apps. In this case, comments from other buyers' agents became part of the court record and part of the court's reasoning about what the seller may have known.

It's easy to treat feedback as marketing noise. This case is a reminder that a pattern in feedback may be worth comparing against what the disclosure forms say.

A quick check before your client removes contingencies

Before the disclosure package goes out, or before contingencies come off, compare what showing feedback says with what the seller's forms say. Did more than one visitor mention the same thing? Does a 'no' answer sit next to a pattern of comments that points the other way? Was anything cleaned, aired out or repaired right before showings that a buyer might reasonably ask about?

These aren't legal questions. They're plain-English questions a careful second read can raise. We flag inconsistencies and red flags early, so questions can go to the right professional.

What's at stake

In this case, a dispute that started at the final walk-through has gone through a trial court ruling and an appeal, and parts of it are headed back for more proceedings. Most clients would much rather sort out questions before they sign.

How House Owl helps

We understand how overwhelming the paperwork is. You're the one guiding your client through it. House Owl is a second set of eyes on your disclosures and transaction documents, so questions get caught and referred to the right professional before close.

A simple plan for your next escrow

1. Book a free 30-minute Learn More call. (https://calendly.com/jason-myhouseowl/learn-more-1)

2. We review your disclosures and transaction documents for inconsistencies and red flags.

3. We walk your client through what we found on a recorded Zoom call, and you're invited to join, so they can close with more confidence.

Why House Owl

An independent second read of your disclosures and transaction documents, with the walkthrough saved as a video recording. We can send a quick recap after the review, and if something needs your attention, we reach out to you directly.

Jason Piske has worked in California real estate since 2016 and offers disclosure-risk training to brokerages. The fee is $995 per side, paid at close of escrow, with nothing up front. You can see how it works on our Services page (/services-new) and get quick answers in our FAQ (/faq). Payment terms are in our Terms (https://www.myhouseowl.com/terms-and-conditions).

Close with more confidence

Clients who understand their documents before they sign. That's the outcome worth working toward on every file.

A second set of eyes on your disclosures.

For more information, book a free 30-minute Learn More call. (https://calendly.com/jason-myhouseowl/learn-more-1)

Sources

Hansen v. Kramer, No. 2025AP1399, Wis. Ct. App., Dist. III (unpublished per curiam, Oct. 20, 2026), via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/2026/2025ap001399.html

General information, not legal advice. House Owl is an independent document review service, not a law firm, real estate brokerage or home inspector. Owner Jason Piske is a California real estate licensee (DRE 02004501), but in a House Owl review he doesn't act as anyone's agent or represent any party. Laws differ by state; talk to a qualified attorney in your state about a specific situation.