Loading ...Ask a question now! E-mail doug@680homes.com and see it here.
I recently purchased my first house and according to the escrow agreement the seller received 3 days after closing to move. Well after three days I called the seller to verify a time we would meet to exchange keys and he told me he needed THIRTY days!!! To make a long story short he claims he didn’t understand the escrow docs and thought he had more time. So I charged him $4000 for the additional 30 days. Now we’re coming close to the end of the thirty days and he STILL isn’t prepared to move. Although, I’d love to milk him for another $4000 I’m ready to move into my place. As the new legal owner what are my options to get him out? Tamara, Los Angeles, Californa
Tamara, there is no easy answer to your predicament, unfortunately. Was there any written agreement as part of the closing process, or executed as part of the agreement to have him pay you $4000? At this point, you are essentially a landlord, and he is a tenant. If his tenancy is up, and you want him out, you should seek the advice of a real estate attorney familiar with landlord/tenant disputes. I do not have all the facts, but I would imagine he would send the seller/tenant a strong letter, and take the appropriate legal action should he not respond favorably. The lesson here is to get all agreements in writing. Had you allowed him to remain for 30 days, this should have been put into writing, with additional language regarding his failure to vacate at the end of the agreement. The other strategy in this situation is to make it increasingly expensive to remain. So you charged him $4000 for the first 30 days, you could incrase it to $5000 or $6000 for the next 30 days. At some point, it becomes too expensive for the tenant to remain. But the most important take away from this is to go see an attorney who can advise you of your next move.
I am buying a house in Pleasanton, and the contract is signed and the escrow is getting ready to close, and the seller decides he does not want to move out at close of escrow, but wants a week after close to move out. When we express the fact that this will not work for us, he threatens to cancel the contract. Can he do this? Ben in Pleasanton
Ben, I have good news and not so good news. The good news is that no, the seller can not unilaterally cancel a ratified contract just because he doesn’t get his way. If all contingencies are removed and you are coming down to the wire, the seller can’t arbitrarily start changing the terms. And he certainly can not cancel a contract. Real estate contracts are bilateral… they require the agreement of both the buyer and seller. If he attempted to cancel the contract, you could likely tie up his property so he could not sell it to someone else, and take him to court to force him to sell to you under the terms of the contract. That is the good news. The not so good news is that this course of action is time consuming, emotionally draining, and costly. If the seller becomes difficult to deal with, try to relax and work around him if you really want the house. You can always take him to small claims court after the close to recoup any out of pocket expenses you incur. Unfortunately, there is virtually no protection in a contract for an obstinent seller. You can either put up with him as best you can, and then seek renumeration in small claims court, or threaten him back, but it is difficult if not impossible to physically force the seller out of the premisis. As always, consult an attorney about the specifics of your case.
Doug, my friend listed her house with an agent with the understanding that if one of her friends (named specifically) buys her property, the agent would be compensated at 4% commission. So one of her friends has made an offer. When the agent sent my friend the estimated pay out from the transaction, the agent put in her commission as 6%. Her explanation is that the original deal was only good until she listed the house in MLS. Is this ethical? Or legal? Or standard practice? Ginny C.
Ginny, that is a great question. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. Any agreement involving the sale or transfer or brokerage of real estate in California must be in writing to be enforceable. So if there was no written clause regarding the friend, then your friends are out of luck. So is it legal? I think a better question is the agent legally entitled to the 6%. Based on what you have described, the answer is yes, since there obviously is no written agreement regarding this situation. Is this ethical? I always have a problem with any party that does not honor the spirit of an agreement, even if the details are not specifically spelled out. But keep in mind that neither you nor I heard what was actually said. Again, this is why all agreements dealing with real estate must be in writing. I this standard practice? Again, I am not sure what you are referring to, but if there is an exception or exclusion to the commission agreement for one party, there normally is a time limit during which the party must act. Whether or not that was clearly stated in writing, or clearly explained, is a matter of conjecture at this point. The lesson here is to always get agreements in writing, escpecially if they are modifications to standard agreements.
RSS
