Question for the realtors here (sale, mortgage, lawyer)

[totallyfrazzled]

I'm really curious about this: Suppose the sellers who just got cold feet before signing the contract we had to buy their house, had actually signed it... and then, say a week before the scheduled closing, THEN decided to back out. From what the contract seems to say, the only thing they'd be obligated to do would be to give us back our downpayment plus any interest it had accrued while in escrow.... and then they could just walk. Without any compensation to the buyers for their expenses incurred in getting their mortgage (had we gotten one as we originally planned and still plan to do when we find something else), or the opportunities lost to find a different house in the interim. Am I the only one who finds this REALLY UNFAIR to the buyer? The seller would have lost nothing by backing out, because I don't see where a contract says it FORCES the seller to sell this person the house.. only to sell it OR to return the downpayment. In which case the seller truly has suffered NO damages by breaching the contract they signed. What's wrong with that picture??

I'm sure as realtors you must have ended up in a situation where a seller signed the contracts but for some reason OTHER THAN the sale being contingent on another transaction the seller had, the seller backed out before closing. Did your buyer receive any other financial recompense other than just getting his downpayment + escrow interest back?

[TomMoser]

Your recourse would be to sue them for "specific performance". In other words, try to get a judge to order them to sell the house to you as per the contract. This is very difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and most people choose not to do it.

[totallyfrazzled]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

Your recourse would be to sue them for "specific performance". In other words, try to get a judge to order them to sell the house to you as per the contract. This is very difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and most people choose not to do it.

That's an interesting option. I wonder if some jilted buyers with smart lawyers do threaten a lawsuit for specific performance, and then as a result the sellers and/or their lawyer end up offering some kind of settlement (say, reimbursing the jilted buyers for their inspection/mortgage expenses incurred, plus X thousand dollars as compensation for time/opportunity lost) just to avoid having their house entangled in a legal action and thus not able to be sold in the meantime.

That would be my first thought as a jilted buyer, anyway.

[TomMoser]

You got it. That's how it works.

[Kbinspections]

Originally Posted by totallyfrazzled

That's an interesting option. I wonder if some jilted buyers with smart lawyers do threaten a lawsuit for specific performance, and then as a result the sellers and/or their lawyer end up offering some kind of settlement (say, reimbursing the jilted buyers for their inspection/mortgage expenses incurred, plus X thousand dollars as compensation for time/opportunity lost) just to avoid having their house entangled in a legal action and thus not able to be sold in the meantime.

That would be my first thought as a jilted buyer, anyway.

I have had several clients get reimbursed from the sellers for our home inspection. It sounds reasonable to me. What expenses did you incur for your mortgage? Time and opportunity will never happen...I would ask for a n invice for your inspection and ask to be reimbursed. Good luck!