Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you. I see SouthernSusana's point, though, and like to think that I would have made accommodations in order to decrease the chances of a buyer walking (in the grand scheme of things, I'd view this as a minor--if rude--inconvenience, especially as I'm trying to unload my property), but I never think it is unreasonable to expect people to follow through with what has been agreed to.
As much as the buyer's agent seems to have been at fault here, if I'm the buyers, I'd also want some reasonable accommodation--though I understand that none is owed--if I showed up at the time through no fault of my own. I could see how the refusal of a seller to allow a walk through could leave a bad taste in someone's mouth.
I'd definitely report this buyer's agent, though.
If the rest of the transaction hadn't been so weird, then accommodating the buyers probably would have been no problem. But based on past history, a sharp eye needed to be kept on them, and I have zero doubt the agent and the buyers were hoping to pull some shenanigans while the sellers were distracted. And having moved young kids it is upsetting enough for them without having to have their last night at home disrupted by crazy people. This issue was entirely created by the buyers. People like that walk all over others their whole lives and when they come up against a situation where they can't get their way they are truly shocked and unable to handle it. I see it all the time at work myself.
I agree with you. I see SouthernSusana's point, though, and like to think that I would have made accommodations in order to decrease the chances of a buyer walking (in the grand scheme of things, I'd view this as a minor--if rude--inconvenience, especially as I'm trying to unload my property), but I never think it is unreasonable to expect people to follow through with what has been agreed to.
As much as the buyer's agent seems to have been at fault here, if I'm the buyers, I'd also want some reasonable accommodation--though I understand that none is owed--if I showed up at the time through no fault of my own. I could see how the refusal of a seller to allow a walk through could leave a bad taste in someone's mouth.
I'd definitely report this buyer's agent, though.
Again, the devil's in the details. Previous history is what lead to how that situation transpired and it's important to take that into account vs generically looking at the one interaction in isolation.
Overall, I must say that I'm quite surprised that the OP has let things get this far based on the sellers (and agent) previous behaviour. In any transaction you have:
- the seller has leverage because the conditions favour the sellers (e.g. multiple offers, "desperate" buyers)
- the buyer has leverage because the conditions favour the buyer (e.g. slow market, "motivated" seller)
- neither party has leverage because neither of the two scenarios above exist (i.e. there is equilibrium in the transaction between the parties)
From OP's original post, it really appeared that they were in the first scenario, where they had multiple offers. However, they gave up that leverage fairly quickly by entertaining demands from the buyer even as those demands seemed unreasonable. They are now learning the hard way that once they give up that leverage, it's very difficult/expensive to get it back.
Best of luck to the OP, hopefully things end up working out and this will just be a hard learned lesson vs a painful one. Unreasonable people tend not to turn into reasonable one's by acquiescing to their demands, they typically are just emboldened. Best to spot them as soon as possible and cut bait.
Wowza. The minute they started asking about personal items, I'd have had my agent cancel the transaction and contact another bidder. Not even a second thought or consideration. They'd be right back to being part of the random 100's of millions of humans who share this country with me, but none of my personal concern.
Welcome to the world of Real Estate sales where we decent agents have to put up with these loser agents on a regular basis.
It's one thing I tell my Sellers it's my job to protect them from Agents and People like this as much as possible. When they first showed up you should have given your agent a call so they could have called Loser Agent and told them to get lost. I've gone over and taken the key or changed the lockbox so no one can get in the house without my approval.
I'm wondering why there would still be a lockbox on OP's house in the first place.
When I sold my Mom's house (as executor), the lockbox was removed as soon as we signed the contract, well before actual closing. Had something gone wrong with the deal, it would have been easy for my agent to re-install it.
I'm wondering why there would still be a lockbox on OP's house in the first place.
When I sold my Mom's house (as executor), the lockbox was removed as soon as we signed the contract, well before actual closing. Had something gone wrong with the deal, it would have been easy for my agent to re-install it.
Isn't that standard?
Not really. We will leave it on there in case someone does need to go back to the house after making an appointment. Doing a final walk through is important to the Buyer and done right before closing.
I sometimes put a Contractors Lockbox on a vacant home if there are repairs going on. Or if I want the agent to call me to get the code instead of using a Supra.
Main thing here is the agent was a day early, unexpected and fairly rude from OP's description. Luckily most agents aren't that way. Just some.
I'm wondering why there would still be a lockbox on OP's house in the first place.
When I sold my Mom's house (as executor), the lockbox was removed as soon as we signed the contract, well before actual closing. Had something gone wrong with the deal, it would have been easy for my agent to re-install it.
Isn't that standard?
Not in the houses I've bought and sold. The buyer's agent needs to let the inspector in, there's a walkthrough right before closing, etc. Why bother the selling agent to return to unlock the doors for those things, which they aren't involved in? All they do is confirm the time for those chores with their client.
I'm wondering why there would still be a lockbox on OP's house in the first place.
When I sold my Mom's house (as executor), the lockbox was removed as soon as we signed the contract, well before actual closing. Had something gone wrong with the deal, it would have been easy for my agent to re-install it.
Isn't that standard?
Lockbox stays on until closing, to provide the buyers legitimate access.
What the OP describes does not fit that description
Again, the devil's in the details. Previous history is what lead to how that situation transpired and it's important to take that into account vs generically looking at the one interaction in isolation.
Overall, I must say that I'm quite surprised that the OP has let things get this far based on the sellers (and agent) previous behaviour. In any transaction you have:
- the seller has leverage because the conditions favour the sellers (e.g. multiple offers, "desperate" buyers)
- the buyer has leverage because the conditions favour the buyer (e.g. slow market, "motivated" seller)
- neither party has leverage because neither of the two scenarios above exist (i.e. there is equilibrium in the transaction between the parties)
From OP's original post, it really appeared that they were in the first scenario, where they had multiple offers. However, they gave up that leverage fairly quickly by entertaining demands from the buyer even as those demands seemed unreasonable. They are now learning the hard way that once they give up that leverage, it's very difficult/expensive to get it back.
Best of luck to the OP, hopefully things end up working out and this will just be a hard learned lesson vs a painful one. Unreasonable people tend not to turn into reasonable one's by acquiescing to their demands, they typically are just emboldened. Best to spot them as soon as possible and cut bait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twingles
If the rest of the transaction hadn't been so weird, then accommodating the buyers probably would have been no problem. But based on past history, a sharp eye needed to be kept on them, and I have zero doubt the agent and the buyers were hoping to pull some shenanigans while the sellers were distracted. And having moved young kids it is upsetting enough for them without having to have their last night at home disrupted by crazy people. This issue was entirely created by the buyers. People like that walk all over others their whole lives and when they come up against a situation where they can't get their way they are truly shocked and unable to handle it. I see it all the time at work myself.
While I see this point and wouldn't have been upset if the OP cut things off earlier on, it seems strange still (to me) to do what the OP did so close to the final step in what has been a chaotic process. In short, the time to put one's foot down had sailed a long time ago. If the OP is forced to go back to square one with this sale, I hope the OP thinks that this move was worth it.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 08-07-2021 at 08:02 AM..
Welp we got through it finally. They asked us if we could have the house professionally cleaned before they moved in. We told them no. Then we were informed there was a possibility of an issue financially on their end that could push back closing. They asked if they were not able to close on the closing date if they could move their stuff in early since they had nowhere to go until they were able to fix it. We said absolutely not and notified them that if any financial issues occurred on closing day the deal was off and we would gladly relist. Somehow they pulled it out of their butt and we were able to be rid of it all finally.
Welp we got through it finally. They asked us if we could have the house professionally cleaned before they moved in. We told them no. Then we were informed there was a possibility of an issue financially on their end that could push back closing. They asked if they were not able to close on the closing date if they could move their stuff in early since they had nowhere to go until they were able to fix it. We said absolutely not and notified them that if any financial issues occurred on closing day the deal was off and we would gladly relist. Somehow they pulled it out of their butt and we were able to be rid of it all finally.
Congrats, what a nightmare, all bluff. I recently sold my parents house fsbo June 2021, buyers agreed to pay for all closing and attorney fees, attorney emailed me with closing costs fees breakdown for buyer and seller, I emailed attorney and explained that buyers agreed to pay all closing cost/fees and that I was not going to pay those fees as previously agreed, cc: buyers. Crickets
But, at the 12th hour, morning of closing buyers called me and told me that they were not going to pay the closing/attorney fees. I told them that was fine, I would keep the $10K earnest deposit and that they would be responsible for all attorney fees due for work performed to date. We closed on schedule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering why there would still be a lockbox on OP's house in the first place. 
