A question for agents and others re the legal position as it pertains to the closing date

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

You don't know what it says and given that an attorney told the seller to how to proceed, it must safeguard the seller's ability to stay in the house after the close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

Ownership and possession are not the same thing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

You don't know what it says and given that an attorney told the seller to how to proceed, it must safeguard the seller's ability to stay in the house after the close.

Well, agree to disagree. There are plenty of stupid attorneys that advise plenty of stupid things. If the "best efforts" clause prevents the property from passing, it nullifies the contract and money won't change hands. The clause does something less than that or the OP wouldn't be asking the question. Given that it is not a standard clause, the parties probably have differing opinions on exactly what the clause accomplishes. As a buyer, I would take possession of my property and leave the seller in a position of having to convince a court of the meaning of the "best efforts" clause. And I would counterclaim for trespass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

Ownership and possession are not the same thing...

Actually, any property professor worth his salt would let you know that there is a reason they say possession is 9/10 of the law. If I am inside the house with documents showing title, OP's cousin is the one who has to spend the time and money to try to get it back.

[Anonymous]

Ownership will change upon closing but the seller may have the right to continue to occupy the property.

It is not dissimilar to a rented house changing ownership and the tenant having the right to live there until the lease is up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

Ownership and possession are not the same thing...

Actually, any property professor worth his salt would let you know that there is a reason they say possession is 9/10 of the law. If I am inside the house with documents showing title, OP's cousin is the one who has to spend the time and money to try to get it back.

It's similar in some ways to when a bank forecloses on a house. The judgment is entered and the bank owns the house but they still have to evict the previous owner. Here, the purchase agreement probably provides for attorney fees and court costs but the new owner still has to go through the system to eject the previous owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

Ownership and possession are not the same thing...

Actually, any property professor worth his salt would let you know that there is a reason they say possession is 9/10 of the law. If I am inside the house with documents showing title, OP's cousin is the one who has to spend the time and money to try to get it back.

It's similar in some ways to when a bank forecloses on a house. The judgment is entered and the bank owns the house but they still have to evict the previous owner. Here, the purchase agreement probably provides for attorney fees and court costs but the new owner still has to go through the system to eject the previous owner.

Except there are statutory protections in a rental eviction or foreclosure eviction that create certain rights. If the seller has a clause saying the seller won't be in breach of the sales contract because some of the seller's possessions have not been moved despite "best efforts", whatever rights the seller might have are only as good as whatever the clause says and the clause is going to be governed by basic contract and property law. The seller doesn't have a lease and no longer owns the property. As I buyer, I would move my ass in and let the seller try to argue I don't have the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The buyers would not agree to a rent-back provision when the contract was signed. I advised the family member to put in a "best efforts" clause which is rarely used in RE contracts but which is sometimes used in commercial transactions. I am not an attorney but I have worked in M&A where this clause is occasionally used. This was a multiple bidding situation and the buyer agreed to the "best efforts" clause on the advice of their agent.

This

An agent who advises a buyer to accept such a clause should be sued.

Yup. And sellers who listen to the advice of their family member who is neither an attorney or realtor should shut their trap as well. This whole thread and situation is a joke.

Agree with the family member part but relying on the advice of most realtors/agents would be the height of folly. Have you seen the clauses within an addendum drafted by agents? They are resemble the writings of an illiterate person in many cases.

You really need to just shut it. Clearly you were dumped by your lover who was a real estate agent and you have a vendetta. Cut this out. It makes you look weak and pathetic.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the PP who advised closing on the house and then, as the buyers, moving right in. So you, seller, say you have the right to remain? Welcome roommate! Meet my big hairy dog. Oh, did I mention that I fart a lot and I like to walk around naked? Seller may have a right to remain -- but this isn't a rental agreement and the new owner also has a right to move in.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the buyer or her agent are reading this thread. ..

[Anonymous]

Dumb asks realtor here: situation happened to me in Virginia. My buyer performed under contract by showing up with funds and signing all required documents

The seller would not sign deed or perform under contract

With my feeble, illiterate mind I advised buyer to sue seller for specific damages

Five weeks later the buyer had the house and $26,000 from seller Seller paid buyer's legal costs of nearly $9,000 and court costs

I am so stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dumb asks realtor here: situation happened to me in Virginia. My buyer performed under contract by showing up with funds and signing all required documents

The seller would not sign deed or perform under contract

With my feeble, illiterate mind I advised buyer to sue seller for specific damages

Five weeks later the buyer had the house and $26,000 from seller Seller paid buyer's legal costs of nearly $9,000 and court costs

I am so stupid

LOL. Another realtor here. I know, we're soooo stupid aren't we? And all lawyers are just so amazingly intelligent!!! I posted here that a buyer of mine had cold feet and hired an attorney who promptly did several things wrong that resulted in the buyer losing their earnest money. And it was a lot of money. We all had a good laugh at that attorney. She shouldn't have quit her day job!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the buyer or her agent are reading this thread. ..

Makes no difference because the contract governs the transaction.