Here sellers do not put deposits in escrow, nor do we have a closing table. Again, I might balk at being out before escrow closes, I don't like giving someone else that much leverage over me.

And yet you expect the buyers to be OK with ponying up their money while you continue to have possession/reside there? as has been pointed out by many here, the acepted norm is for the sellers to be out and the buyer to gain possession of their property at closing.

Like it or not. lol

There's no "accepted norm" for possession;

that's why there's a fill-in-the-blank on the contract & that's why the state has promulgated a Seller's Temporary Lease & a Buyer's Temporary Lease.

Possession of THEIR PROPERTY at closing is fine & dandy if it works.

If not, & buyers & sellers agree, sellers can become tenants;

landlords get possession of their property when the lease has ended.

It happens all the time.

"There's no "accepted norm" for possession;"

Nonsense. Read all the posts above.

I get it that anything is negotiable, but when poster after poster indicates the seller has always vacated the property prior to closing with possession being given to the buyer at closing, that certainly suggests an "accepted norm."

Again, anything is negotiable.

I know you probably didn't mean to be rude, but calling information provided by a real estate broker with over 30 years of experience facilitating the sales & purchases of many many properties "nonsense" because it doesn't match your own experience is indeed rude.

& it isn't even accurate.

No matter how many home sellers & home buyers posting on this forum have shared the experiences you have had, that doesn't make the experiences an "accepted norm".

In Texas, the seller seldom moves until after closing & funding.

I guess everyone's experience is different. We have had a total of four house transactions here in Texas, two bought and two sold, and in all four instances the property had to be vacated on or before closing as a standard, in order to stay longer special provisions had to be written into the contract, and most potential buyers were not comfortable with that.

We are now in the process of selling our third house and building our retirement home.

Sylviatexas...I'm an agent in TX, and it is usual here for the seller to be out of the house before closing, and the buyer gets possession after funding (usually same day, or next day before noon.

I think we should just agree to disagree whether or not the sellers should remain after closing as many say yes, and just as many say no.

As long as the buyer and seller agree to this, it's nobody's business but theirs.

I lived near Houston Tx for 5 years, and when we moved, it was common practice to be out of the home before closing. Even if it was right before closing.

I have said this before, but why on Earth would it be the norm to let a seller to continue to live in your home after the close? I can understand drawing up a short term rental lease under certain circumstances, but for it to be the norm is very risky. What do the insurance companies have to say about this? Whose insurance company would be responsible if the sellers accidentally burnt the home down?

Interesting that the OP never returned.

The buyers' insurance company would be responsible; there's an endorsement that the agent adds to the policy when the buyer isn't going to move into the house for, if I remember correctly, up to 60 days. It's used for just such situations as this.

As I said, as a seller's agent, I never recommend vacating your house to give buyers possession at closing.

Why not? It's their house once closing has taken place.

copied from my earlier post:

It gives the buyer leverage to re-negotiate (ie, force additional concessions) at the closing table.

Imagine: you've packed your stuff, signed a lease or contract to buy, & your moving van is sitting in the parking lot at the title company...& your buyer looks very sad & says, "We're about $1500 short, don't see how we can close, sorry."

Sorry, I'm confused.

SaltiDawg said:

" there is no way I could pack up my whole house and move out in 3
days" is absurd in my experience, we packed and moved in three days or
less every single time!

Just sayin'."

I'd like to see you pack an 8,000 sq.ft house for an international relocation with part of the furnishing going into long term storage, part going into a container for overseas shipping, part going in an air shipment, plus personal suitcases, plus a garage full of items for donations ... now do that alone with 2 young kids (since the husband already left to start that new job overseas), while also doing last minute visas, etc for the international move ... sure you can do that in 3 days! What a joke.

You must of had a bad week calling my experiences absurd and someone else's information nonsense ...

Sylviaintexas wrote, "Imagine: you've packed your stuff, signed a lease or contract to buy,
& your moving van is sitting in the parking lot at the title
company...& your buyer looks very sad & says, "We're about $1500
short, don't see how we can close, sorry."

And in what state can you get all the way to closing without having ALL the money accounted for and available and in escrow already? If presented with that situation, I'd take the $1500 from the buyer's agent's commission and let the buyer give the agent an IOU on the spot.

"I'd like to see you pack an 8,000 sq.ft house for an international
relocation with part of the furnishing going into long term storage,
part going into a container for overseas shipping, part going in an air
shipment, plus personal suitcases, plus a garage full of items for
donations ... now do that alone with 2 young kids (since the husband
already left to start that new job overseas), while also doing last
minute visas, etc for the international move ... sure you can do that in
3 days! What a joke."

My wife and Navy wives in general handle moves involving that very same triage every few years. Of course, most of them can't afford 8000 sq ft homes. lol

Did you leave all of the things you described to the same few days? I do hope the heavy lifting you performed did no harm.

"Did you leave all of the things you described to the same few days? I do hope the heavy lifting you performed did no harm."

Of course I didn't wait till the last few days, which is why I said I could not pack/move in 3 days. Even the professional movers took longer than 3 days to do their part in the move.

Because you live a certain way and think a certain way, doesn't make other people's way of life, experiences and knowledge absurd or nonsense, they are just different from yours.

I recently moved from an 850ish sq ft house. It took at least five days of actual packing the boxes and then moving the boxes and furniture into the moving container. I KNOW I couldn't move in 3 days, even if I had all the packing materials (boxes, tape, markers, and fragile packaging materials such as paper or bubble wrap) on hand. I admit, I pretty much did it alone, but truly, even if I'd had a lot of help, I do not see how I could move in three days? I think it took me a week, but with a lot of help it might've cut off a couple of days. Putting in the container took the least amount of time. It's the boxing that does it.

I've done it in two - with a full team of packers, truck loaders, etc. Done it all by myself - not in a million years. We made corporate moves on a regular basis for 30 years.

What was the original poster's question?

Here, the title company tells the buyer the exact amount he/she needs to bring to the closing table within a day of closing.

If a buyer wants to re-negotiate, he/she just shows up with a cashier's check for something less.

& the seller isn't entitled to "take" anybody's commission.

Commission is not a part of the contract between buyer & seller.

You might be able to get the money you expected from the buyer, or you can pay it yourself, *negotiate* for contributions from brokers, title company, buyer's relatives, etc.

or you can walk, & move all your stuff back into that house.

You can't order the title company to give you someone else's money.

Personally if I already had my stuff packed and ready to move and the deal fell through I would still be moving. Someone else will come along to buy the house. I don't deal with cheaters, and that is what they are if they come to the closing table without the money they were told to bring. Negotiations are over by the time you get to the closing table. It might be legal but it's not ethical.

"If a buyer wants to re-negotiate, he/she just shows up with a cashier's check for something less."

So in Sylvia, Texas World, the Purchase and Sales contract is not an enforceable contract? lol

That's why they carry in Texas.

And that's why in my state, funds are in escrow before the actual closing, and the sales commission is part of the settlement sheet.

Sounds like Texas, doesn't it? LOL

Texas bashing is beside the point, & "enforceable contract" is...

also beside the point.

If you can afford to move & have a vacant house on the market, by all means indulge yourself & enjoy your outrage & your legal fees.

Otherwise, please be very careful about moving before you have the buyer's funds in hand.

???? lol

PS No Bashing of The Lone Star State here.

Sorry, but it wasn't intended as Texas bashing, sorry. It was a joke on how the contract is being enforced in Texas. And I contrasted this with how it is handled in my state (which, unrelated, I assume, has tough gun laws).

Yup!

Or more to the point, how it is purported to be "handled." ;-)

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I just stated what I would do. Every house we have ever sold we moved out before closing day, and the same with houses we purchased, they were moved out before closing day.

As far as changing the contract at the closing table, I have never had a tolerance for bullies and I still don't in my golden years. Some may have to cave due to their circumstances, but it's not in my nature, so I hope I am never in that position.

...and I'm not sure why I would have legal fees since they would be the one's breaking the contract...

I will agree to disagree on this subject, but I would like to know what happened with the original post.

My memories of my family moving in my youth is that the house was all packed before closing day (paper plates and cups for a couple of days) and the moving truck arrived very early the day of closing. The buyer's walk-through was done before closing, when 99% of stuff was on the truck. When my parents left for closing, we all left the house. A couple of time,s my parents had two closings the same day -- the house they were selling and the house they were buying.

When I bought my home, the sellers' movers were still there when I did the walk-through, and there was still a bit of stuff in the house, but most was already on the truck. Keys were exchanged at closing. I was renting at the time, so I had a week of overlap -- it was great that I didn't have to vacate a place that day!

When the market in DC was super-hot before the bubble burst, my friends who lived down near the zoo got over their asking price plus two weeks to stay in the house rent free (the seller wanted to close within the rate lock period, but my friend's kids weren't done with school yet).

We have bought three houses in two states and sold two of them and have never closed with the sellers still in the house.

The first house was in VA and the sellers had already moved and had "professional" house sitters in the place. The sitters asked to stay after closing and we refused and that was that. We took possession after a morning walk through and keys were handed over at the closing table.

The second place, also in VA, the sellers were still living in it and they moved prior to closing and we took possession after a morning walk through and afternoon closing with keys exchanged at the closing table.

The third place, in California, was vacant when it hit the market. This is absolutely the norm in this area of California. I can't remember ever seeing an occupied house on the market here unless it was occupied by tenants and being sold as an investment property. People move out, stage, then put the house on the market. I have known people who bought a new house in the same neighborhood, moved out of their old house completely, had it staged and then put it on the market.

My dad was military and later a real estate agent in Colorado and they bought and sold several houses and everywhere they bought and sold, custom was that the seller had to vacate by closing.

There's risk on both sides here of course. Because just as the seller doesn't want to pay to move out not knowing one hundred percent that closing will go through, the buyer doesn't want to give notice on a lease or sell their current home and do their own packing, not knowing if sellers will actually move out. And in many locations sellers who are still in the house after closing will be considered tenants and the eviction process can be lengthy and costly.

Obviously there is some regional variation, but I would be very uncomfortable allowing a seller to stay in possession of a house after closing.

This had been an interesting discussion. We have bought and sold several times and taking posession at closing was never questioned. We are also long-time landlords, so we are probably a little more aware of the potential pitfalls of someone living in a property we own. It could be a potential deal breaker for us

Sylviatexas, I totally get why you recommend that your sellers don't vacate prior to closing, but I was wondering how much emphasis you place on it. If your sellers get push back from buyers who want them out at closing do you counsel them to hold firm? Even if the buyers are holding firm themselves?

We are currently building a custom home and were divided on when to sell our current home. With 3 cats and 2 dogs we were unable to find a suitable rental property so chose to stay in our current home while building our new one.

We did discuss with our realtor the possibility of staying in our house after it had sold if our new house was not finished in time, and she said it was possible to put that in the contract, but her experience was that potential buyers were not comfortable with doing that.

We chose to wait till our builder told us we were 30 days from completion before we put our house on the market. We realize we will have to pay double mortgages for a bit, but generally houses in this area sell inside of 3 month.

Our new house has had some delays but it looks like it may be done within the next 2 weeks, and our current house has been on the market for a little less than a month. Hopefully a buyer will come along shortly and we can get off this roller coaster.

beth, like so much else...it depends.

It depends on what the sellers' schedule is (new house won't be ready for some awkward amount of time?), on what the buyers' situation is (landlord already rented their apartment?).

If buyers have to be out of their home by the date of closing, can we move closing up a few days?

Thanks for your response, Sylvia. But I was thinking of a scenario where timing has nothing to do with it. What would you do if you had buyers (like us) that had no interest in entering into a tenant/landlord relationship at all. I mean, clearly in a negotiation everyone wants to put themselves or their clients in the strongest position, but in your estimation is it worth losing a buyer? How hard do you push this advantage?

don't know that I ever had a closing in which timing had nothing to do with...anything.

The decision lies with the sellers.

I would do whatever they wanted me to do.

If buyers were adamant,

& if sellers understood their risk,

& if buyers were willing to put up a non-refundable deposit with the sellers in addition to earnest money,

& if sellers had a place to go,

I would feel better about possession at closing.

As an agent, I normally have sellers ready to be out by closing. I will often ask the lender for the buyers to give a cleared to close 4 or 5 days before closing, and then have sellers get out, so they can be gone by closing. If someone is in doubt about the buyer's, that's easy to do. If the buyers are financing the home, the mortgage co will verify funds, and once they get the cleared to close, you know you are good. If cash, the sellers agent should have required proof of funds, so that should be fine as well.

Why is everyone so obsessed about this? One side says it's nuts to move out before closing, and the other side says its the only way.

Get a grip people!

I have stated a number of times that in different parts of the country each scenario is considered the norm, and if both the buyer and seller agree, who are we to say it's wrong?

It is as normal as apple pie where I live. We did it, in fact, as buyers. But it is NUTS to allow buyers to stay without a rent-back agreement, escrow of funds, and I believe we had some type of insurance agreement as well. The amount of paperwork we had to read through for a 14-day rental was amazing. Why in the world would anybody allow virtual strangers to stay in their new home for free??? I fault the realtor 100 percent for this.

A seller asked me to move into his house for free for several months before closing. Why? He wanted to close after owning it for two years for tax benefit. It was good for me, he had the bigger exposure such as me not closing and not moving out.. It all worked out fine. As said, each party to the transaction makes personal decisions which is best for each person.

I'm still in the don't move out early camp, to each his own. I've bought and sold many properties and never had a serious problem. I do always try to keep agreements to my benefit and and not lose everage.

Why fault a Realtor if both parties understand the risk and agree to it?

" I fault the realtor 100 percent for this."

Of course.

"A seller asked me to move into his house for free for several months before closing. "

What does that have to do with the OP? The OP is a buyer, not a seller. And the OP has not indicated any such benefit to them of allowing the sellers to squat in place with no protective measures in place. I blame the realtor because the realtor should have encouraged the buyer to have a rental agreement in place, and told them why.

What does it have to do with the original post?

It has to do with possession of buyer before closing, which is the mirror image of seller possession after closing.

& since OP asked for & got insights & opinions on seller possession after closing, & since we don't know what amendments would be applicable in OP's state, & since we don't know what the Realtor (copyrighted term, capitalized) actually did or did not say to OP, & since nobody asked anybody to "blame" anybody, blaming the Realtor is nonsensical.

I just read all this, lol and I wondered... if a buyer tried to change the deal at closing for a lesser amount, and the seller got all "make my day". If the buyer walks they forfit the earnest money right?

Jonnygun--depends on which state you live in, and how enforceable that escrow money system is. In my state, you can walk away and also take your escrow money with you most of the time... Not to mention, in too many places, escrow $ is very little compared with the actual cost of moving.

Thanks, i was curious because I had a buyer flake on me once. It was the easiest $5k i ever made.

And yet, "

Here, the title company tells the buyer the exact amount he/she needs to bring to the closing table within a day of closing.

If a buyer wants to re-negotiate, he/she just shows up with a cashier's check for something less."

lol

With every real estate transaction I've been involved in, the final paperwork was sent to all parties involved 7 days prior to closing. The actual closing was just the formality.

deleted. Ne need on going on.