Editorial Policy

Last Updated: October 9, 2026

This page documents how HousesLaw content gets made, reviewed, and corrected. For who writes it, see About Us.

1. Sourcing Standards

Claims are checked against primary sources: statutes, regulations, court rules, and official government guidance, not against what other sites already say.

Where a rule is unsettled or genuinely varies by state, we say so rather than flattening it into a single answer.

2. Use of AI Tools

AI tools are used at specific points in how a guide comes together.

During editing, AI may assist with light polish: tightening phrasing, smoothing transitions, and catching inconsistencies the way a copyeditor would, not the way a researcher would; it doesn’t touch the underlying legal claims.

Every article’s images are produced with AI image-generation tools rather than licensed stock photography, with each one reviewed by a person for accuracy and fit before it’s used.

AI tools are not used as a substitute for checking primary sources, and no article is published on the strength of AI-drafted claims alone. A person verifies sourcing and accuracy before anything goes live.

3. Corrections

If you find something outdated or wrong, contact us and we’ll look into it. Confirmed corrections are made directly to the article, and the “last updated” date is changed to reflect it; we don’t quietly edit without logging that the guide changed.

4. Review Cadence

Legally substantial guides are revisited periodically, not just when a reader flags an issue, particularly after state-level law changes that affect a topic we cover.

5. Editorial Independence

Our guides are written to answer the reader’s question, not to promote a product, service, or advertiser. Any paid or sponsored content is labeled as such and kept separate from editorial guides.