"In my area (LA County) normally we never meet the other party to the transaction."

That is true throughout California. All requirements are tracked by or accomplished by Escrow Agents. There is no "closing" in the sense of the word used in most if not all other states. In every state, except CA, that we have bought or sold in, the final action was a "Closing" where the attorneys and buyers and sellers sit down in a room and sign and exchanged documentation, to include deed, mortgage, typically cashier's check, etc.

When we bought and sold in CA there was no such meeting. The Escrow folks tracked the required inspections, money deposits, title search, insurance binder, etc, etc, according to a set of instructions provided to them at the opening of escrow.

As an aside, when I bought in San Diego, the Escrow Agents had satisfied all requirements (they thought) for the sale and closed escrow a day early. My insurance coverage binder showed that my insurance took effect on the scheduled day of closing. I was absolutely livid as I had ownership of the home with no effective insurance policy. I reported it to the bank, as they also have an interest in the property being insured. The bank took the Escrow folks to task.

Re inspections, the savvy seller and agents will have in writing the date by which the "inspection" is made - it must be very early in the process to prevent discovering issues at the last minute. The final "walk thru inspection" is a simple process to verify the property is being left in the agreed to condition and that all items to be conveyed to the buyer have remained. Every single home sale and purchase I have been involved in, in many different states, has involved a "walk thru inspection" conducted on a vacant home and generally was done the day before "closing."

The laws covering RE transactions vary by state.

Items like possession at COE or after are negotiable. The sellers may ask for COE +1 or +2 but those are requests. Your offer can say anything you want, just like they can ask for anything they want.

Agents are good at skipping over those details because they only get paid when the house sells. Most don't want you to argue about anything that might kill the sale. If escrow closes, they get paid. The squatter becomes the buyers problem.

Problems with getting the seller to move out will vary widely. A friend that buys distressed and foreclosed properties considers them the norm. The seller frequently has nowhere to go. It seems like the OP's seller just doesn't care, which sound far, far better. Still a big pain, though.

There are some real horror stories out there and not just on the low end. I know someone that spent $60,000 on attorney fees getting the seller out. Another is trying to offer the seller $50,000 to keep his house and give him back his money. Another is getting fined by the city for acts by the seller, who is still there after almost a year. He can't insure the property because the insurance company can't inspect it.

I would have broken into my house and changed the locks. The sellers belongings? What belongings? Those things would have been made gone and then it would be up to them to prove they left their things in "my" house. I would not feel guilty. The sellers knew what they were doing, and it seems they were hoping that you would allow them to take advantage of you.

OP, what's the current status?

And Acadia, sadly you would have been subjecting yourself to a tremendous amount of liability if you did that. I say sadly because that's just the way the law works. Go sit in a small claims court watching evictions for an afternoon. It's remarkable what people think they are entitled to without paying a dime.

Note to self: if dealing with a distressed seller or a hoarding seller, include an eviction clause in the purchase contract.

Or do as the majority of the Country does, require the home to be vacant and subject to a walk through typically the day before "closing." In an escrow state, such as CA, include in the Escrow Instructions the need for that walk thru of the vacant home.

Now that we are o longer dealing with a squatter, i send the seller Notice to Claim Abondoned Property. The notice allows him to claim his property with the next 18 days before we have the right to discard. He has this weekend to finish moving it without being charged storage. After this weekend we are charging $30/day for storage. If he picks it up after this weekend he will need to pay that storage cost to claim the property. All of this is aligned to California stake law.

jewels - you can't issue an eviction notice before you own the property.

This case was unusual, more sad was the OP coming on here asking for advice since she was not receiving it from her agent.

"C F

And Acadia, sadly you would have been subjecting yourself to a tremendous amount of liability if you did that. I say sadly because that's just the way the law works. Go sit in a small claims court watching evictions for an afternoon. It's remarkable what people think they are entitled to without paying a dime."

It's not an eviction. They are not tenants and I am not a landlord. Escrow closed, the property and it's contents are mine.

Acadia,

It's a different kind of "tenancy." Not the typical signed lease landlord/tenant relationship that you think of. Recovering possession from an individual who previously had a legal right in a piece of property is more complicated than just breaking in and kicking them out. A formal eviction process is most definitely required if no agreement is reached. You just don't usually see them happen in non-foreclosure sales where both parties are willing and represented by agents.

The system is partially designed to protect the seller as well. Imagine if you were the seller and something happened at closing that meant you didn't get what was bargained for. The new "owner" can't just claim "got ya!" and come busting in, waving a document and throw all your stuff to the curb the next day.

^^^^^CF Thank your being patient in explaining this to me. I think my hot temper would get me in trouble if I was the OP. Plus I am spoiled because my lawyer (hubby's best friend since childhood) works for free. But I do think your suggested approach is much wiser than mine.

Throughout this thread, CF and other experienced folks keep on reminding people that real estate related resolution is locally specific, yet there are plenty 'advices' and 'suggestions' offered based on personal OPINIONS. Imagine if OP took these advices, guess who would be in trouble?

I am curious, by law if both buyer and seller's real estate agents bear any responsibilities for this type of mess? do hope experienced realtors such as NC and Linda would share their thoughts.

^^^^ Well it could be a crapshoot. The law from my understanding will favor the buyer. The seller who left their items will have the burden of proof in court, and they will need to pay to file a claim. So even though my opinion if I was the OP may end up costing me, it may also be effective in that the seller will not be able to prove his/her case after they incurred the expense of filing a claim. I think CF is wise in covering all bases but that does not mean that someone like me would lose in court if it even got that far. I personally would not want to claim that I have the PO's personal possessions after closing because that in itself creates a burden on my part. So even though I would not play it safe that does not mean I would come out the loser. CF is wise because he suggests paying up front to keep the property safe and that gives the buyer piece of mind if a court case happens. I would prefer to pay only if I have to and the court deems me liable. Some people call that "trouble" but I could live with it.

I think it would be really annoying to have to pay for someone's junk that I had put out on the curb. I've seen so many Judge Judy cases where she tells the landlord that they are responsible and have to cough up.

As someone above wrote: go to the small claims court and see what happens there.

@ acadiafun1

The problem I see with your court argument is you are using the ideas of tangible property dispute as a defense against an illegal eviction. You are thinking damages but the damage isn't removing their stuff, it is interfering with their habitation. I personally know of a case where the landlord bought and paid for a moving company to come in and move the stuff to storage. In the case, the tenant was notified of the movers, allowed the movers in, helped them load the stuff and vacated the premises leaving the key. He then sued the landlord and won very big, I don't remember the amount but it was in the multiple tens of thousands and he lost none of his stuff. The landlord never checked if the guy had a place to go, and he didn't.

In the end, it is your money, do whatever you want. Move their stuff, have thugs break in and throw them in the street, or just knock and do it yourself. There is always the chance they won't know to take you to court. But if they do, that whole "prove I did it" defense is probably going to fly about as far as a fat man flapping his arms.

@ azmom

There are a few problems holding the realtor responsible. First, the NAR has indemnified them pretty good. Realtors are basically salesmen rather than agents now. Next, they are not attorneys and as their defense they will ask why you chose not to get an attorney. It is certainly something they should have mentioned but I am not sure it rises to negligence.

Hello Bry 911,

Being a layperson I do not know where to draw the line between buyer/seller's and agents' legal responsibilities, it is why I asked. Now I am even more curious as what should be handled by attorneys or realtors.

azmom

For a safe rule, realtors get you to the deal, attorneys do the deal. However, even that line is blurry, very few people get an attorney to do the offer letter, which probably has more pitfalls than the final transaction.

The most common way a real estate attorney would handle the above situation is the contract would be written with a move out date and a penalty for missing it. Usually something like double the fair value of rent rounded up to the whole month. A good realtor might inform you of that mechanisms existance.

While it may sound bad, another solid assumption is that realtors are usually informed right up to their paycheck. But again, that is an assumption. In the end, how much your realtor knows and will tell is a bit of a crap shoot.

"bry911

@ acadiafun1

The problem I see with your court argument is you are using the ideas of tangible property dispute as a defense against an illegal eviction. "

And that is where the devil is in the details. Landlords are held to a much greater degree of responsibility than a homeowner who has purchased property from a another homeowner from my understanding. If I was a landlord or a buyer who was removing property of the PO's tenant than I would be much more cautious. But in this scenario the PO is not a tenant and I am not the landlord. Honestly- like I said I would be less cautious and dare the PO's to take me to court. Seriously- take me to court. This is not a landlord/tenant property dispute. That makes all the difference.

Exactly... Totall agree. I am not a landlord and he is and will never be my tenant. I just simply bought a house i will live in that he wont cleanout. But just incase, I followed the California State of Law abandoned property rules. And just incase, i had them sign a paper that allows me to move his things to the garage. Which the abandoned property rules do approve. They approve moving the property to storage.

So if you force a tenant to vacate under any circumstances his furnishings become abandoned property? Just asking.

@ acadiafun1 & emiorilla

tenant

noun border, conductor, dweller, holder, householder, incola, inhabitant, landholder, landowner, leaseholder, lessee, lodger, occupant, one holding land of another, one occupying another's land, one occupying real property, one using real propprty, owner, paying guest, possessor, proprietor, rent payer, renter, resident

While most people may think that a tenant is someone who rented from you, it has nothing to do with it.

Here is a link to an attorney's blog who explains it. It is not caselaw or anything but it is easier to read and pretty clear. Of course, every state is different but there is a lot of commonality.

bry911 you copied and pasted that from an online legal dictionary. There was more:

" tenant-a person who occupies real property owned by another based upon an agreement between the person and the landlord/owner, almost always for rental payments. (See: tenancy)"

Also- the PO has vacated the property. It is no longer a holdover seller situation. Only the question of the PO's personal belongings remain. I am sure the original real-estate contract will protect the OP.

emiorilla- Hope this situation resolves quickly for you. Glad you posted this thread as it certainly is a situation that most buyers would not expect to run into.

I give up, I have a JD, the person who is an attorney in the thread is saying the same thing, a fast google search finds thousands of confirmatory results, tell me the state and I will find the specific statute for you that says holdover seller...but you must be right, because it doesn't sound kosher to you. As long as you are also the presiding judge you are right, but when you get to court start flapping your arms, I doubt you will win the case, but you might fly, who knows.

Also- the PO has vacated the property. It is no longer a holdover seller situation. - So we told their agent, who is also hard to get a hold of that we will need to break in tomorrow. &We saw the backyard from the side and NONE of their things are cleaned up. Because, leaving all my stuff at the house and going out to eat, out of town or just to the grocery is vacating my property.

Bry911- just to clarify, that post was in the beginning just to see if their agent will do anything to finish his job of handing over the keys and talk to his client. We ended up not breaking in. They already had the moving truck there at the house but since he was making excuses( his physical condition) the reason for not moving his things fast enough to fill the truck, we hired the movers to do so. Then PO drove the truck away leaving less than half of his belongings (now completely out of the interior of the house nut filling just the garage and patio).

acadiafun's post that started this portion of the discussion was "I would have broken into my house and changed the locks. The sellers belongings? What belongings? Those things would have been made gone and then it would be up to them to prove they left their things in "my" house."

bry911,

Thank you for the clarification of responsibilities between realtors and attorneys.

"The most common way a real estate attorney would handle the above situation is the contract would be written with a move out date and a penalty for missing it. Usually something like double the fair value of rent rounded up to the whole month." Agree, it is imperative to make a water tight contract to handle what-if scenario, after all, everything would be referred back to the contract. It is also prudent to involve an real estate attorney in a real estate transaction.

Bry911- got it! Thanks!

Btw everyone! We are still waiting on the PO to finish moving their belongings from the garage but they are slowly moving out... Sigh

Bry911, You quite often offer the commentary that the closing attorney has much more responsibility to their clients than do the agents. But, no matter how much you think that NAR buffers us from protecting our clients, we have a fiduciary responsibility to every client we deal with. And because we are much closer to the details and red flags of any deal than is the closing attorney, our fiduciary responsibilities, and the chances to breech them is greater. In fact, most closing attorneys here make the buyers and sellers sign a form saying that they represent neither party, but are rather transactional in nature only... (even if the courts may deem this illegal; to be continued)

If this was my own personal transaction, I would do as some have said, and acted emotionally and walked right into my new home, changed the locks, and thrown out the sellers belongings. However, I would never advise my client to do so. In fact, I would never advise my client to let a seller possess the home after closing. Way too many pitfalls that could happen. I have had a couple buyers over the years go against my advice, but they did prepare a full rental lease, required the seller to get renters insurance and required the seller to put a very large deposit into escrow and they also prepared a detailed Move - In form which the seller and buyer filled out together to determine the preexisting condition details of every room and also the exterior.

I find it amazing that some states have this type of closing as a normal occurrence.

Emiorilla- glad things are moving in the right direction for you.

There are a lot of opinions and advice on this thread. Mine was not popular but I can only say for bad or for worse what I would have done. I think the one thing we did learn from your experience is to be cautious, and there may be penalties in being the "nice guy" in a business deal. I doubt your seller would be able to pay penalties if he had not honored a contract with an extended move out date since he did not have even the money to move. Even if you did win a judgment against him in that scenario, you may not have been able to collect. Your situation has taught us that it may be prudent to stick by a final walk through before escrow closes and to refuse to close if things are not as agreed. Thanks again for sharing your experience as I am sure many will learn from it.

@ nc - I can certainly see where you may have read what I said as "the [closing] attorney does the deal." That is not what I meant. As far as I know, I have never said anything about closing attorneys. A closing attorney is not usually your attorney, I always have my attorney look over real property deals, and suggest others do too. All of the above should be implicit in my statement, "as their defense they will ask why you chose not to get an attorney."

Attorneys write real estate contracts which can then be filled out by realtors, most times realtors simply fill out preprinted legal forms. A realtor generally can't write real property contracts.

As a result, realtors are not usually responsible for contract deficiencies unless the deficiency resulted from improperly filling it out. Now if an attorney in your office prepared the form then that is another story. There are gray areas, realtors have been known to fully write contingency clauses.

Note that I said the realtor should have warned you. But liability is a trickier thing.

acadiafun1,

The reason your approach is not popular because it is not backed up by practitioners' expertise and experience. Your suggestion exposes a buyer to potential law suit and legal fee.

Why the seller could not pay a penalty if there is a judgement against him for this case? Did not he just receive proceeds from the sale?

I am not 100% sure if the only way for this type of situation is to insist a walk through before closing. Years ago we allowed sellers stay as they could not move out prior to the closing date that was the same day the low locked loan rate expired. We did what NC suggested as we always use realtor and lawyer in all of our real estate transactions.

Our Contracts that realtors use in TX are promulgated contracts. That is, they have been reviewed, changed and agreed upon by a group of atty's to make sure they provide equal protection for buyers, sellers, escrow companies and agents to some degree.

On some foreclosures, there may be people still living in the home, and you can't do a walk thru until after you close, and go thru eviction proceedings. On our regular sales, my broker requires that buyers do a walk thru ideally the day of closing, and the house is vacant. If it isn't we can extend the closing if needed. We are required to have the buyers sign a walk thru and acceptance form, or we won't be paid.

As an agent, we don't want issues with closing and possession from buyers or sellers. I usually will tell my sellers that they must be out of the house and have it broom clean by day of closing, even though the buyers won't take possession until funded (usually day after closing). I will usually coordinate with the listing agent once inspections are done, when the sellers will be out. If my sellers need the money to move, when we counter an offer, we will include a temporary lease for a few days after closing, so before the contract is executed, everyone knows where they stand.

Here in TX, if someone is still in the house after funding you must go thru eviction proceedings. You can't just throw out their stuff. So it behooves buyers to not close until the house is vacant.

I will add that agents in TX are forbidden from offering any legal advice. So if the Op's situation happened, we would have to advice the buyer to contact an atty. Behind the scenes, I would be contacting the listing agent and putting pressure on them to get the seller out of the house, and if needed, I would probably pay to dispose of the personal property if they were to leave trash, and the lawyer confirms that the time limit had expired for them to claim it. But, again, my advice to the buyer would be to refuse to close until the house was vacant.

Lenders in my area don't put houses on the market until occupants are out, maybe because of potential liability.

When selling an owner-occupied property, we use the promulgated Seller's Temporary Residential Lease if seller is not to vacate until after closing. This spells out that the seller has become a tenant, the terms & duration of the lease, & what money the seller deposits with the buyer/landlord for rent & security deposit.

I sold my house after a divorce. I had no money and deep in dept. I made clear i may need more time after closing to move as i had lived there 20 years on 2 acres. After close i had 7 days to clear property. On the ith day buyer came in and started throwing my belongings into the trash. I needed more time. And lost family hierlooms.car parts.many things. Can i sue my realtor?*

No. Now what did the Contract say re your staying beyond closing?

• Can i sue my realtor?
• 
  
• Probably not unless your realtor helped them throw your stuff away. You can probably sue the new owners for an illegal eviction, assuming the facts are as you presented. However, cases like this are always unpredictable.

" ...assuming the facts are as you presented."

Are these the facts that you are relying on?

"After close i had 7 days to clear property. ... I needed more time."

I'll stay with, " Now what did the Contract say re your staying beyond closing?"

Are these the facts that you are relying on?

"After close i had 7 days to clear property. ... I needed more time."

I'll stay with, " Now what did the Contract say re your staying beyond closing?"

Yes, those are the facts that I was relying on.

It may not matter what the contract says at all. The contract can say you have 48 hours and even 48 months later the buyer can't just show up throw your stuff out.

If the seller is living in the property after closing (a holdover seller), then the buyer becomes a landlord and is subject to some form of landlord/tenant law (or trespasser in possession). Some states have an expedited process for removing sellers who refuse to vacate, but it still must be done through the court. I did assume the "7 days to clear property" was not a court order.

A good realtor will try to get a buyer to avoid a rent back for this very reason, when it works, it is no problem. When it goes South it can be a massive problem. In states with longer eviction processes sellers can live in the house free for months while buyers get the eviction.

Having said the above, illegal eviction actions don't always work out well, even when won. Judges have some leeway, especially in determining the value of the loss, and might decide to give you a few dollars and a few weeks of market rent. On the other hand, states that are very pro-tenant can be incredibly punitive for landlords and even buyers who illegally evict.

Bry I have a question concerning your reply. How would the new owner know that the person did not just leave their stuff? Jimby did not mention that the buyer was contacted and told that they had to have more time. While I agree with you but jimby left out that part. Perhaps will come back and clarify. While this house did not have much left I have seen houses that needed a big dumpster to clean out the stuff that was just left.

@ maifleur01

Jimby asked, "can I sue my realtor?" I just said that he probably couldn't sue the realtor, but probably could sue the buyer for an illegal eviction. I can't tell you how good the case is or anything else, only who he would have a cause against and the nature of that cause. It might turn out that his case is complete crap, but that wasn't the question. These things tend to sort themselves out, people who were wronged have the best cases and so tend to follow them through.

-------------------------------

How would the new owner know that the person did not just leave their stuff? Jimby did not mention that the buyer was contacted and told that they had to have more time

I am not sure it matters whether or not they knew. Was there knowledge that the seller would have a key and a right to the property after close? How does any landlord know when a tenant has vacated? It requires an eviction or some affirmative action from the tenant, such as turning over the key.

In some states, in this situation, Landlord/tenant laws do not come into play until after the 7 day mark... Like Bry says, it is a state by state thing as to what recourse the seller has.

But, why on Earth would you not, on day 6, notify the new buyers that you needed more time? IMO, you created this problem. And, why sue the agent? What the heck did he/she do to aggravate the situation?

In some states, in this situation, Landlord/tenant laws do not come into play until after the 7 day mark

Just asking out of curiousity...

Doesn't it still have be a court ordered detainer to remove them? I really don't know if it is this way in every state, but here a seller who refuses to vacate still has to be evicted. The process for removing them is much faster, I don't know the timetable here, but I do know the Sheriff must be physically present to initiate the removal.

I am really not sure Bry. All I know is that if the time period is less than 7 days, then a lease agreement is not needed... only wording in a contract addendum.

Whatever, the rules are in any particular state, it is an easy way to get yourself in a mess. It is a bit unfortunate really. I think things would work better if laws advocated for the buyer a bit more than the possessor. I suspect many current laws hurt both buyers and sellers, as it creates a hesitancy to close from buyers even though the timing of real estate transactions perfectly can be hard.

@jimby3

Since I was in the shoes of the buyer, and I am the creator of this post, please allow me to comment on your situation. My seller was in a similar situation as you (in debt, lived in the house for a long time, had numerous belongings since he was a hoarder including heirlooms, and needed more time to move). Unfortunately, I was not notified that he needs more time to move. That was not in the contract (the contract only stated 3 days to move). Either his realtor failed to notify that to my realtor, escrow or whatever the reason is, I was not notified. Thus, I sold my current home at that time to my buyer and had to move out within 5 days from there.

As a responsible seller and buyer, I checked the contract before I signed and planned to move out of my previous home within 5 days. However, my seller in your situation was not responsible enough to check the contract and didn't start packing his belongings on the 5th day. If your contract says 7 days, you must move within 7 days. Legally, the buyer should not throw away your belongings, but morally, I get what the buyer is going through. Your debt is not their debt. And your lack of responsibility for not reading the contract before signing and taking the money is not their responsibility. Whatever the reason is, please understand that the buyer also has their reasons. Your are not the only one in the world with a debt and a divorce.

Being 7 months pregnant during that time, I ended up digging into my labor $$ to pay for that irresponsible seller's moving cost since his excuse was he doesn't have enough time to find money to pay for the moving cost so he needs to do all the moving himself (thus more time needed). We spend more than $700 for HIS moving cost and time off work to find and schedule a move as we also had to be there physically to make sure it actually gets done and help move his things to speed it up. After we spend a whole day helping him move and paying for his move, we had to stay awake overnight to move our belongings to the house so our buyer doesn't have to suffer what we went through. The stress during that time was detrimental to my pregnant-self and the baby, emotional and physically. And if something happened to my baby, the seller won't take responsibility. He only cared about this irresponsibile debt-filled self.

So please be responsible and hire movers to expedite your move with your own $ that you gained from selling your home. That moving cost should have been calculated from the beginning.

Yeah, there are some pretty irresponsible people out there.

I used to do some work for property owners and managers who were just so through with people they decided to lower their stress by moving their deadbeats out before they became problems.

They bought a truck. When someone was 10 days late with rent, or not moved out after close, they sent the truck out offering to move the persons stuff out to wherever the tenant wanted, and give them $200 when it was done.

A lot cheaper and quicker than eviction. It almost always worked!

So I bought a house in CA and seller is refusing to move out. Purchase agreement said he gets up to 14 days after close of escrow. It’s now been 30 days since close and he’s asking to stay another 30 days. There are also two unkown tenants in the house that weren’t previously disclosed and I only found out after close of escrow. The agents aren’t doing anything. Ive spoken with a lawyer who’s starting eviction process. Can or should I also sue the agents. Sellers agent never told me there were other tenants in the house and my agent never cautioned me about this scenario even though I brought up the issue when purchase agreement included 14 days for seller after close of escrow. Anyone have thoughts? Reading this thread has at least someone calmed me down tonight.

I am so so sorry this is happening to you. CA law has made me distrust the state law to have common sense. Although, I still love Los Angeles and it is forever my original home, I have decided to move to Dallas and sell my current home ( the one we bought from a hoarder) without keeping it as rental property. CA law just makes it too high risk to rent it out to possible squatters and I don't want to deal with that nightmare all over again. i read thst you have a lawyer now so I hope you are in hood hands and your issue resolves soon. This covid time and dviction moratorium might complicate it even more but I hope it will not!!!