Just curious...what are considered "attatchments"...is a microwave over
the stove??? what do i have to leave the buyer?

It is not an 'attachment' if it can be removed without injury to the home.

An appliance is typically not considered an attachment unless it is built
in.

Attachments don't always have to remain with the home. The Agreement of
Purchase and Sale (Ontario, Canada) can be written to include or exclude
any item. Generally speaking, if an attachment is not included, the
seller should be responsible for fixing any damage left by its removal and
that should be in the Agreement.

Your Agreement of Purchase and Sale should spell out what stays and what
goes as specifically as possible, including model numbers for any
appliances. It may seem like overkill, but it can save all kinds of grief
at closing.

Check your contract and call your realtor if you have any questions.




) writes:
Just curious...what are considered "attatchments"...is a microwave over
the stove??? what do i have to leave the buyer?

Natalie Munro wrote:
It is not an 'attachment' if it can be removed without injury to the home.

I can remove most light fixtures without injury to the home. Toilets
too. Yet, if you took either of those, you'd be in trouble. This
definition is way off the mark. I think anything that is fastened in
place goes with the house is the more typical definition.

That means if the microwave over the oven is fastened in, it stays. If
it's sitting on the counter, it's your personal property and you may
take it. I'd also make sure items of specific interest, eg frig,
stove, washer, are specified in the sales contract as to if they are
included or not.






An appliance is typically not considered an attachment unless it is built
in.

Attachments don't always have to remain with the home. The Agreement of
Purchase and Sale (Ontario, Canada) can be written to include or exclude
any item. Generally speaking, if an attachment is not included, the
seller should be responsible for fixing any damage left by its removal and
that should be in the Agreement.

Your Agreement of Purchase and Sale should spell out what stays and what
goes as specifically as possible, including model numbers for any
appliances. It may seem like overkill, but it can save all kinds of grief
at closing.

Check your contract and call your realtor if you have any questions.




) writes:
Just curious...what are considered "attatchments"...is a microwave over
the stove??? what do i have to leave the buyer?

) writes:
Natalie Munro wrote:
It is not an 'attachment' if it can be removed without injury to the home.

I can remove most light fixtures without injury to the home. Toilets
too. Yet, if you took either of those, you'd be in trouble. This
definition is way off the mark. I think anything that is fastened in
place goes with the house is the more typical definition.

I took the definition straight from the book. I agree that it's not
adequate. Calling an attachment anything that's fastened isn't adequate,
either.

Buyers and sellers often don't know what should stay so it's up to the
realtor/s to make sure that the Agreement is specific about what is
considered attached and what is not. No-one wants a surprise on closing
day.

That means if the microwave over the oven is fastened in, it stays. If
it's sitting on the counter, it's your personal property and you may
take it. I'd also make sure items of specific interest, eg frig,
stove, washer, are specified in the sales contract as to if they are
included or not.

And include the model numbers. The buyer wants the appliance he/she saw,
not the substitute that the seller picked up at a yard sale.

Usually chandeliers and appliances are mentioned. I doubt a seller who
is including appliances would swap out for garage sale items. Final
walk through would reveal this and then a smart buyer would protest and
delay closing and maybe even walk awayfrom sale. As a seller if I want
certain things I list as excluded. Buyer sees that and doesnt expect to
get washer stove etc. I had a custom fireplace mantle and excluded that
from sale. No problem. As a buyer I'd probably bail if the house was
gutted even though contract didnt say "wallboaed is included"

wrote:
Natalie Munro wrote:
It is not an 'attachment' if it can be removed without injury to the home.

I can remove most light fixtures without injury to the home. Toilets
too. Yet, if you took either of those, you'd be in trouble. This
definition is way off the mark. I think anything that is fastened in
place goes with the house is the more typical definition.

That means if the microwave over the oven is fastened in, it stays. If
it's sitting on the counter, it's your personal property and you may
take it. I'd also make sure items of specific interest, eg frig,
stove, washer, are specified in the sales contract as to if they are
included or not.






An appliance is typically not considered an attachment unless it is built
in.

Attachments don't always have to remain with the home. The Agreement of
Purchase and Sale (Ontario, Canada) can be written to include or exclude
any item. Generally speaking, if an attachment is not included, the
seller should be responsible for fixing any damage left by its removal and
that should be in the Agreement.

Your Agreement of Purchase and Sale should spell out what stays and what
goes as specifically as possible, including model numbers for any
appliances. It may seem like overkill, but it can save all kinds of grief
at closing.

Check your contract and call your realtor if you have any questions.




) writes:
Just curious...what are considered "attatchments"...is a microwave over
the stove??? what do i have to leave the buyer?

In article .com,
wrote:

Usually chandeliers and appliances are mentioned. I doubt a seller who
is including appliances would swap out for garage sale items. Final
walk through would reveal this and then a smart buyer would protest and
delay closing and maybe even walk awayfrom sale. As a seller if I want
certain things I list as excluded. Buyer sees that and doesnt expect to
get washer stove etc. I had a custom fireplace mantle and excluded that
from sale. No problem. As a buyer I'd probably bail if the house was
gutted even though contract didnt say "wallboaed is included"



You may not know this, but you cannot walk away from the sale (or even
delay closing) based on the walkthrough when using most 'standard' sales
contracts. This makes sense if you think about it, since the walkthrough
is often the same day (or a day before) closing. You have no legal rights to
stop the sale at that time, unless your contract is written with that
contingency expressly included. The 'standard' contracts do not include it.
What you *can* do is sue the seller after closing for damages. If you want
the close to be contingent on the results of a walkthrough then I'd make
sure it's in your contract to do so. Note that this is not the portion of
the contract in which seller agrees to make repairs, although that might
be a good place to include it.


Dimitri

Either way the seller isnt getting his/her closing if he/she decides to
play games. He/she can try and sue buyer if the buyer refuses to close
due to significant changes in condition of property. If the house I
just bought was significantly damaged by a falling tree prior to
closing I would have bailed. Seller would have no recourse as the
property had significantly changed since contract was signed. If we
worked out a deal fine but I would feel free to bail without
consequence. In NJ the standard contract pretty much states that
property will be in same or better condition at closing. Not worth it
for a seller to play games esp. if he/she is counting on closing to
purchase another property. Much easier to exclude items one wants to
keep.

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Usually chandeliers and appliances are mentioned. I doubt a seller who
is including appliances would swap out for garage sale items. Final
walk through would reveal this and then a smart buyer would protest and
delay closing and maybe even walk awayfrom sale. As a seller if I want
certain things I list as excluded. Buyer sees that and doesnt expect to
get washer stove etc. I had a custom fireplace mantle and excluded that
from sale. No problem. As a buyer I'd probably bail if the house was
gutted even though contract didnt say "wallboaed is included"



You may not know this, but you cannot walk away from the sale (or even
delay closing) based on the walkthrough when using most 'standard' sales
contracts. This makes sense if you think about it, since the walkthrough
is often the same day (or a day before) closing. You have no legal rights to
stop the sale at that time, unless your contract is written with that
contingency expressly included. The 'standard' contracts do not include it.
What you *can* do is sue the seller after closing for damages. If you want
the close to be contingent on the results of a walkthrough then I'd make
sure it's in your contract to do so. Note that this is not the portion of
the contract in which seller agrees to make repairs, although that might
be a good place to include it.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Usually chandeliers and appliances are mentioned. I doubt a seller who
is including appliances would swap out for garage sale items. Final
walk through would reveal this and then a smart buyer would protest and
delay closing and maybe even walk awayfrom sale. As a seller if I want
certain things I list as excluded. Buyer sees that and doesnt expect to
get washer stove etc. I had a custom fireplace mantle and excluded that
from sale. No problem. As a buyer I'd probably bail if the house was
gutted even though contract didnt say "wallboaed is included"



You may not know this, but you cannot walk away from the sale (or even
delay closing) based on the walkthrough when using most 'standard' sales
contracts. This makes sense if you think about it, since the walkthrough
is often the same day (or a day before) closing. You have no legal rights to
stop the sale at that time, unless your contract is written with that
contingency expressly included. The 'standard' contracts do not include it.
What you *can* do is sue the seller after closing for damages. If you want
the close to be contingent on the results of a walkthrough then I'd make
sure it's in your contract to do so. Note that this is not the portion of
the contract in which seller agrees to make repairs, although that might
be a good place to include it.


Dimitri


According to whom? If the buyer discovers on walk through that the
seller has removed items that are included, ie removing light fixtures
or toilets, who says the buyer can't even delay the closing? It's
implied in the contract that the property is to be in the same
condition it was at time of contract. The whole purpose of the walk
through is to verify this. To remove any significant property is,
IMO, a breech of contract by the seller.

Now, I agree the most logical thing to do is to go ahead and close, but
only if money is held in escrow to cover the missing items or damage.
If the seller doesn't agree to escrow this, I don't see any obligation
of the buyer to close, and then try to find the seller to sue them,
when they may be long gone. And if the buyer wants to delay the
closing for a reasonable period to figure out what to do, that is well
within their rights too.

In article .com,
wrote:

According to whom? If the buyer discovers on walk through that the
seller has removed items that are included, ie removing light fixtures
or toilets, who says the buyer can't even delay the closing? It's
implied in the contract that the property is to be in the same
condition it was at time of contract. The whole purpose of the walk
through is to verify this. To remove any significant property is,
IMO, a breech of contract by the seller.

Now, I agree the most logical thing to do is to go ahead and close, but
only if money is held in escrow to cover the missing items or damage.
If the seller doesn't agree to escrow this, I don't see any obligation
of the buyer to close, and then try to find the seller to sue them,
when they may be long gone. And if the buyer wants to delay the
closing for a reasonable period to figure out what to do, that is well
within their rights too.


I only know the law in California, but here is the relevant portion of
the 'standard' purchase agreement used he


"Final verification of condition:
Buyer shall have the right to make a final inspection of the property
within 5 days prior to Close of Escrow, NOT AS A CONTINGENCY OF THE SALE,
but solely to confirm:
(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."


7A talks about the property being in its PRESENT physical condition as
of the date of Acceptance and subject to Buyer's Investigation rights.


So, even though you find something wrong in the walkthrough that IS NOT
a contingency of sale! I am studying to be a broker here in CA and my
professor confirmed this. The walkthrough can help provide evidence of
damages for a later lawsuit, but it cannot block the sale UNLESS you
have altered the standard CAR purchase agreement.


As for delaying closing, that's difficult to unilaterally do as long as
the contingencies (e.g. inspection) have been removed. A single party cannot
hold up the closing merely because he wants to. When a contingency is
removed then it is removed and the final inspection is not a contingency.


Imagine, say, that everything is fine on the day you do your walkthrough
and you "sign off" on it. The next day, the seller takes the fixtures (without
you knowing). You close escrow the next evening. You get to the house and find
the fixtures are gone. What are you going to do about it? You're going to have
to sue. The house closed regardless. The situation is little changed if
you *do* find out about it. Without a doubt, the contract has been
violated. However, you will still own the house. You will have to go to
court if you want to get out of the sale.


Dimitri

That's a different situation if seller alters house after walkthrough
and before closing. Then a lawsuit is the only option. If however the
alteration is discovered beforehand the buyer simply calls his lawyer.
A good lawyer will immediately get on phone with seller's attorney and
deal with it. If buyer is not happy he/she can simply refuse to sign
anything til situation is resolved. Just like a car. Until you drive
off the lot the deal is not done. If I go to pick up a new car and
there is major damage I have no obligation to sign anything and buy
car. In NJ I would like to see a seller sue a buyer after telling the
judge " I completely gutted the house , took everything I could even
though there was no mention in the contract and I wanrt the buyer to
fulfill his obligations" Wouldnt get too far IMO.
I doubt I would refuse to close if a light fixture was missing or
decorative switchplate cover was replaced with a plain one. However if
appliances were supposed to be included and were all gone or there was
a gaping hole somewhere where a fixture was ripped out I'd refuse to
close until I got irt fixed or money for new appliances in my lawyers
hands.

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

According to whom? If the buyer discovers on walk through that the
seller has removed items that are included, ie removing light fixtures
or toilets, who says the buyer can't even delay the closing? It's
implied in the contract that the property is to be in the same
condition it was at time of contract. The whole purpose of the walk
through is to verify this. To remove any significant property is,
IMO, a breech of contract by the seller.

Now, I agree the most logical thing to do is to go ahead and close, but
only if money is held in escrow to cover the missing items or damage.
If the seller doesn't agree to escrow this, I don't see any obligation
of the buyer to close, and then try to find the seller to sue them,
when they may be long gone. And if the buyer wants to delay the
closing for a reasonable period to figure out what to do, that is well
within their rights too.


I only know the law in California, but here is the relevant portion of
the 'standard' purchase agreement used he


"Final verification of condition:
Buyer shall have the right to make a final inspection of the property
within 5 days prior to Close of Escrow, NOT AS A CONTINGENCY OF THE SALE,
but solely to confirm:
(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."


7A talks about the property being in its PRESENT physical condition as
of the date of Acceptance and subject to Buyer's Investigation rights.


So, even though you find something wrong in the walkthrough that IS NOT
a contingency of sale! I am studying to be a broker here in CA and my
professor confirmed this. The walkthrough can help provide evidence of
damages for a later lawsuit, but it cannot block the sale UNLESS you
have altered the standard CAR purchase agreement.


As for delaying closing, that's difficult to unilaterally do as long as
the contingencies (e.g. inspection) have been removed. A single party cannot
hold up the closing merely because he wants to. When a contingency is
removed then it is removed and the final inspection is not a contingency.


Imagine, say, that everything is fine on the day you do your walkthrough
and you "sign off" on it. The next day, the seller takes the fixtures (without
you knowing). You close escrow the next evening. You get to the house and find
the fixtures are gone. What are you going to do about it? You're going to have
to sue. The house closed regardless. The situation is little changed if
you *do* find out about it. Without a doubt, the contract has been
violated. However, you will still own the house. You will have to go to
court if you want to get out of the sale.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
I only know the law in California, but here is the relevant portion of
the 'standard' purchase agreement used he


"Final verification of condition:
Buyer shall have the right to make a final inspection of the property
within 5 days prior to Close of Escrow, NOT AS A CONTINGENCY OF THE SALE,
but solely to confirm:
(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."


7A talks about the property being in its PRESENT physical condition as
of the date of Acceptance and subject to Buyer's Investigation rights.

And I would intrepret that to mean that the buyer cannnot just say at
walkthrough thatI now I don't like the way the place looks for some
cosmetic reason or for some new alleged defect, so I'm not going to
close. However, it clearly says the purpose of the walkthrough is to
verify that it has been maintained by the seller as it was offered for
sale and that seller has complied with their obligations. The
seller, by removing items, has violated both those sections of the
contract. I would say that breachs the contract and is exactly what
the walk through is there to catch BEFORE closing Suppose the buyer
finds on the walkthrough that all the windows are now broken, all the
appliances that were listed as included are gone, as are the light
fixtures and toilets. Are you saying the buyer has to close
immediately anyway? Ridiculous and anyone that tells you that is an
imbecile.




So, even though you find something wrong in the walkthrough that IS NOT
a contingency of sale! I am studying to be a broker here in CA and my
professor confirmed this. The walkthrough can help provide evidence of
damages for a later lawsuit, but it cannot block the sale UNLESS you
have altered the standard CAR purchase agreement.


As for delaying closing, that's difficult to unilaterally do as long as
the contingencies (e.g. inspection) have been removed. A single party cannot
hold up the closing merely because he wants to. When a contingency is
removed then it is removed and the final inspection is not a contingency.


Difficult? As buyer, all I have to do is have my lawyer call up their
lawyer and reschedule it. It's done all the time. How many closings
have you actually done? The date is almost never cast in concrete in
the contract, exactly because of all the uncertainties and things that
can come up. And what exactly is the seller going to do if the buyer
wants to delay the closing for 5 days to figure out how to remedy the
above situation? Are they gonna have the cops come arrest the buyer?
The very most they could do is sue the buyer for specific performance.
And after removing fixtures, the likelihood of them prevailing is
remote, plus it ain't gonna happen in 5 days, is it?




Imagine, say, that everything is fine on the day you do your walkthrough
and you "sign off" on it. The next day, the seller takes the fixtures (without
you knowing). You close escrow the next evening. You get to the house and find
the fixtures are gone. What are you going to do about it? You're going to have
to sue. The house closed regardless.

Entirely different situation. In that case, the buyer doesn;'t know
he's being screwed until after the fact. If it surfaces that the
seller is cheating during the walk through before closing, the buyer
still has considerable leverage. Only an idiot would close without
getting plenty of escrow held to cover the loss and only then if the
loss is relatively minor. And if it takes the buyer a few days
delay to figure out how much that should be, it's very reasonable. And
the seller really doesn't have any viable option other than to wait the
few days, does he? So, too bad. Ask your professor if he was the
seller and the buyer said he isn't closing until the issue is resolved
what exactly he would do?



The situation is little changed if
you *do* find out about it. Without a doubt, the contract has been
violated. However, you will still own the house. You will have to go to
court if you want to get out of the sale.

Well, if you agree the contract has been violated by the seller and
that the buyer then just has to close today cause the seller says so,
with no escrow, no redress, you better consult a real lawyer.







Dimitri

wrote:
That's a different situation if seller alters house after walkthrough
and before closing. Then a lawsuit is the only option. If however the
alteration is discovered beforehand the buyer simply calls his lawyer.
A good lawyer will immediately get on phone with seller's attorney and
deal with it. If buyer is not happy he/she can simply refuse to sign
anything til situation is resolved. Just like a car. Until you drive
off the lot the deal is not done. If I go to pick up a new car and
there is major damage I have no obligation to sign anything and buy
car. In NJ I would like to see a seller sue a buyer after telling the
judge " I completely gutted the house , took everything I could even
though there was no mention in the contract and I wanrt the buyer to
fulfill his obligations" Wouldnt get too far IMO.

Exactly. Like who is going to force the buyer to close? The cops?
LOL If the buyer refuses to close until the issue is resolved the
seller doesn;t have any leverage or many good options here.


I doubt I would refuse to close if a light fixture was missing or
decorative switchplate cover was replaced with a plain one. However if
appliances were supposed to be included and were all gone or there was
a gaping hole somewhere where a fixture was ripped out I'd refuse to
close until I got irt fixed or money for new appliances in my lawyers
hands.

Exactly. You;d have to be an idiot to close and then go chase the
seller skunk who could be long gone and judgement proof by the time a
lawsuit is heard. Any decent lawyer would be reading the seller the
riot act for breach of contract, not cowering in fear of "not closing."

In article .com,
wrote:

Exactly. Like who is going to force the buyer to close? The cops?
LOL If the buyer refuses to close until the issue is resolved the
seller doesn;t have any leverage or many good options here.

Exactly. You;d have to be an idiot to close and then go chase the
seller skunk who could be long gone and judgement proof by the time a
lawsuit is heard. Any decent lawyer would be reading the seller the
riot act for breach of contract, not cowering in fear of "not closing."


You might find that a judge orders you to close. Refusal to close can
also be a breach. The seller might have a 'dry closing' and you'd better
be sure the terms of the contract were breached. From the terms of the
contract I posted, it is not necessarily true that finding a problem
at walkthrough constitutes a breach by the seller. Again, the walkthrough is
not a contingency of the sale.


Dimitri

In article om,
wrote:

That's a different situation if seller alters house after walkthrough
and before closing. Then a lawsuit is the only option.


In actuality, the situation is not any different. It might appear so,
but legally it is not. Imagine if the seller made an alteration and
you did not catch it during the final inspection. Does that absolve
the seller?


In NJ I would like to see a seller sue a buyer after telling the
judge " I completely gutted the house , took everything I could even
though there was no mention in the contract and I wanrt the buyer to
fulfill his obligations" Wouldnt get too far IMO.


This is a substantially different issue, because the condition of the
house is drastically different. No seller in his right mind would trust
a jury to side with him.


Dimitri

In article .com,
wrote:

"Final verification of condition:
Buyer shall have the right to make a final inspection of the property
within 5 days prior to Close of Escrow, NOT AS A CONTINGENCY OF THE SALE,
but solely to confirm:
(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."


And I would intrepret that to mean that the buyer cannnot just say at
walkthrough thatI now I don't like the way the place looks for some
cosmetic reason or for some new alleged defect, so I'm not going to
close. However, it clearly says the purpose of the walkthrough is to
verify that it has been maintained by the seller as it was offered for
sale and that seller has complied with their obligations. The
seller, by removing items, has violated both those sections of the
contract. I would say that breachs the contract and is exactly what
the walk through is there to catch BEFORE closing Suppose the buyer
finds on the walkthrough that all the windows are now broken, all the
appliances that were listed as included are gone, as are the light
fixtures and toilets. Are you saying the buyer has to close
immediately anyway? Ridiculous and anyone that tells you that is an
imbecile.


What I am telling you (and the contract states) is that a walkthrough is
not a contingency. You cannot cancel the contract based on the
walkthrough. The purpose of the walkthrough is so that a buyer acting
in good faith can inform a seller acting in good faith that he is
satisfied. If the buyer or the seller are not acting in good faith
then that is the subject of a lawsuit. The results of the walkthrough
are not enough to terminate the contract or delay closing indefinitely.


Difficult? As buyer, all I have to do is have my lawyer call up their
lawyer and reschedule it. It's done all the time. How many closings
have you actually done? The date is almost never cast in concrete in
the contract, exactly because of all the uncertainties and things that
can come up. And what exactly is the seller going to do if the buyer
wants to delay the closing for 5 days to figure out how to remedy the
above situation? Are they gonna have the cops come arrest the buyer?


They can file a suit to force closing if they really want to. The judge
may do it or the judge may not. At that point you are in litigation
and the contract remains in force unless/until the judge decides
otherwise.


The very most they could do is sue the buyer for specific performance.
And after removing fixtures, the likelihood of them prevailing is
remote, plus it ain't gonna happen in 5 days, is it?


This is true, but is rather beside the point. In a real transaction,
both sides are aware of the realities and (usually) work toward
a solution that makes sense.


Well, if you agree the contract has been violated by the seller and
that the buyer then just has to close today cause the seller says so,
with no escrow, no redress, you better consult a real lawyer.


Legally, that is the obligation. It is not completely clear that the seller
violated the terms of the contract. You may want to gamble that way. That
would, I suppose, depend on if you still wanted to buy the house or not.
If you did, then you should close and sue the seller later. If you are
willing to walk away from the property then you may be willing to gamble
more.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

"Final verification of condition:
Buyer shall have the right to make a final inspection of the property
within 5 days prior to Close of Escrow, NOT AS A CONTINGENCY OF THE SALE,
but solely to confirm:
(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."


And I would intrepret that to mean that the buyer cannnot just say at
walkthrough thatI now I don't like the way the place looks for some
cosmetic reason or for some new alleged defect, so I'm not going to
close. However, it clearly says the purpose of the walkthrough is to
verify that it has been maintained by the seller as it was offered for
sale and that seller has complied with their obligations. The
seller, by removing items, has violated both those sections of the
contract. I would say that breachs the contract and is exactly what
the walk through is there to catch BEFORE closing Suppose the buyer
finds on the walkthrough that all the windows are now broken, all the
appliances that were listed as included are gone, as are the light
fixtures and toilets. Are you saying the buyer has to close
immediately anyway? Ridiculous and anyone that tells you that is an
imbecile.


What I am telling you (and the contract states) is that a walkthrough is
not a contingency. You cannot cancel the contract based on the
walkthrough. The purpose of the walkthrough is so that a buyer acting
in good faith can inform a seller acting in good faith that he is
satisfied. If the buyer or the seller are not acting in good faith
then that is the subject of a lawsuit. The results of the walkthrough
are not enough to terminate the contract or delay closing indefinitely.


According to you and what you say your professor says. And I say from
my reading of that section of the contract, it says that the
walkthrough cannot be used to cancel closing based on some new finding.
But it clearly says that the walkthrough is being done to verify that
the seller has maintained the property for sale in the condition it was
found, that any repairs have been made, and that the seller has
fulfilled his other obligations. If it is found that this has not
occurred, then the buyer is well within his rights to delay the closing
until this is sorted out.

And IMO, the wording of that section is very poor, as it leaves the
door open to multiple interpretations.





Difficult? As buyer, all I have to do is have my lawyer call up their
lawyer and reschedule it. It's done all the time. How many closings
have you actually done? The date is almost never cast in concrete in
the contract, exactly because of all the uncertainties and things that
can come up. And what exactly is the seller going to do if the buyer
wants to delay the closing for 5 days to figure out how to remedy the
above situation? Are they gonna have the cops come arrest the buyer?


They can file a suit to force closing if they really want to. The judge
may do it or the judge may not. At that point you are in litigation
and the contract remains in force unless/until the judge decides
otherwise.


Sure they can file a lawsuit. Then they can wait a year for it to
be heard. And that is if the buyer doesn't drag it out, in which case
it could take 2 years. Now, how practical is that as opposed to just
resolving the issue right now, before closing?





The very most they could do is sue the buyer for specific performance.
And after removing fixtures, the likelihood of them prevailing is
remote, plus it ain't gonna happen in 5 days, is it?


This is true, but is rather beside the point. In a real transaction,
both sides are aware of the realities and (usually) work toward
a solution that makes sense.

It's not beside the point. It is the point. Because you are
suggesting some dire consequences await the buyer, who upon discovering
the seller has removed all the fixtures in the house, decides to even
delay the closing, unitl it is resolved. In reality, holding the
seller's feet to the fire BEFORE closing is the best leverage the buyer
has.





Well, if you agree the contract has been violated by the seller and
that the buyer then just has to close today cause the seller says so,
with no escrow, no redress, you better consult a real lawyer.


Legally, that is the obligation.

It gets even better. So, now one party can breach a contract, do
whatever they want, and they other party is forevever bound to continue
with the contract, regardless? This is assinine. Suppose the buyer
breached the contract by not coming up with the rest of the down
payment on time? Is the seller then bound to continue the sale? Or
how about if the seller breachs the contract by not being able to get a
CO, is the buyer then obligated to buy the house anyway and hope to
straighten it out after the fact?



It is not completely clear that the seller
violated the terms of the contract. You may want to gamble that way. That
would, I suppose, depend on if you still wanted to buy the house or not.
If you did, then you should close and sue the seller later. If you are
willing to walk away from the property then you may be willing to gamble
more.


It's not clear to you that a seller who removes light fixtures and
toilets prior to closing has violated the contract?


That's a different situation if seller alters house after walkthrough
and before closing. Then a lawsuit is the only option.

In actuality, the situation is not any different. It might appear so,
but legally it is not. Imagine if the seller made an alteration and
you did not catch it during the final inspection. Does that absolve
the seller?


The situation is drastically different. BEFORE closing, the buyer is
in an excellent position to get resolution. If he just cowers in fear
that he must close and can't even delay the closing to get it resolved,
then the chance of ever seeing money is reduced. Did you ever sue
anyone and try to collect? You make it sound like it's simple. How
much time and money is that gonna take, regardless of whether you
recover anything? Suppose the seller has moved 2000 miles away.
Then what? Or if the seller is judgement proof, as would not be
unusual to find for a scum bag that would remove fixtures from a house.

All I know is Iwouldnt you you working for me as a buyer's agent.
You'd accept anything a dirtbag seller tried just to close and get a
commission. This thread shows how vital it is to get a good lawyer.
Maybe in CA things are different but in NJ only a dumb newyorker would
close if the property was significantly different.

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

"Final verification of condition:
Buyer shall have the right to make a final inspection of the property
within 5 days prior to Close of Escrow, NOT AS A CONTINGENCY OF THE SALE,
but solely to confirm:
(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."


And I would intrepret that to mean that the buyer cannnot just say at
walkthrough thatI now I don't like the way the place looks for some
cosmetic reason or for some new alleged defect, so I'm not going to
close. However, it clearly says the purpose of the walkthrough is to
verify that it has been maintained by the seller as it was offered for
sale and that seller has complied with their obligations. The
seller, by removing items, has violated both those sections of the
contract. I would say that breachs the contract and is exactly what
the walk through is there to catch BEFORE closing Suppose the buyer
finds on the walkthrough that all the windows are now broken, all the
appliances that were listed as included are gone, as are the light
fixtures and toilets. Are you saying the buyer has to close
immediately anyway? Ridiculous and anyone that tells you that is an
imbecile.


What I am telling you (and the contract states) is that a walkthrough is
not a contingency. You cannot cancel the contract based on the
walkthrough. The purpose of the walkthrough is so that a buyer acting
in good faith can inform a seller acting in good faith that he is
satisfied. If the buyer or the seller are not acting in good faith
then that is the subject of a lawsuit. The results of the walkthrough
are not enough to terminate the contract or delay closing indefinitely.


Difficult? As buyer, all I have to do is have my lawyer call up their
lawyer and reschedule it. It's done all the time. How many closings
have you actually done? The date is almost never cast in concrete in
the contract, exactly because of all the uncertainties and things that
can come up. And what exactly is the seller going to do if the buyer
wants to delay the closing for 5 days to figure out how to remedy the
above situation? Are they gonna have the cops come arrest the buyer?


They can file a suit to force closing if they really want to. The judge
may do it or the judge may not. At that point you are in litigation
and the contract remains in force unless/until the judge decides
otherwise.


The very most they could do is sue the buyer for specific performance.
And after removing fixtures, the likelihood of them prevailing is
remote, plus it ain't gonna happen in 5 days, is it?


This is true, but is rather beside the point. In a real transaction,
both sides are aware of the realities and (usually) work toward
a solution that makes sense.


Well, if you agree the contract has been violated by the seller and
that the buyer then just has to close today cause the seller says so,
with no escrow, no redress, you better consult a real lawyer.


Legally, that is the obligation. It is not completely clear that the seller
violated the terms of the contract. You may want to gamble that way. That
would, I suppose, depend on if you still wanted to buy the house or not.
If you did, then you should close and sue the seller later. If you are
willing to walk away from the property then you may be willing to gamble
more.


Dimitri

In article .com,
wrote:

All I know is Iwouldnt you you working for me as a buyer's agent.
You'd accept anything a dirtbag seller tried just to close and get a
commission. This thread shows how vital it is to get a good lawyer.
Maybe in CA things are different but in NJ only a dumb newyorker would
close if the property was significantly different.


Replacing an appliance with a like (but less valuable) appliance is
not a significant difference. If I was your buyer's broker, I'd probably
suggest that you add an addendum to the purchase agreement spelling out
that the final inspection *is* a contingency. I am letting you know
what the standard contract (at least in CA) says. However, like I said
in another post, if you *do* use it as a contingency then the contract is
not in force and you will not be buying the house unless the seller
agrees to your request. So, it depends on if you really want to buy
the house or if you are content to let it go based upon the difference
in appliances. If the latter, you can sue for the difference later.


Dimitri

In article . com,
wrote:

According to you and what you say your professor says. And I say from
my reading of that section of the contract, it says that the
walkthrough cannot be used to cancel closing based on some new finding.


Exactly. Some new finding, such as one appliance being switched for
another. That's a new finding.



They can file a suit to force closing if they really want to. The judge
may do it or the judge may not. At that point you are in litigation
and the contract remains in force unless/until the judge decides
otherwise.


Sure they can file a lawsuit. Then they can wait a year for it to
be heard. And that is if the buyer doesn't drag it out, in which case
it could take 2 years. Now, how practical is that as opposed to just
resolving the issue right now, before closing?


We're not talking about practicality. However, you seem to think that
drawing it out will only hurt the seller. In reality, it can hurt
both parties.



This is true, but is rather beside the point. In a real transaction,
both sides are aware of the realities and (usually) work toward
a solution that makes sense.

It's not beside the point. It is the point. Because you are
suggesting some dire consequences await the buyer, who upon discovering
the seller has removed all the fixtures in the house, decides to even
delay the closing, unitl it is resolved. In reality, holding the
seller's feet to the fire BEFORE closing is the best leverage the buyer
has.


You (as the buyer) can threaten, but they are idle threats. A reasonable
seller may listen, but imagine if you encounter an unreasonable seller.


It gets even better. So, now one party can breach a contract, do
whatever they want, and they other party is forevever bound to continue
with the contract, regardless? This is assinine. Suppose the buyer
breached the contract by not coming up with the rest of the down
payment on time? Is the seller then bound to continue the sale? Or
how about if the seller breachs the contract by not being able to get a
CO, is the buyer then obligated to buy the house anyway and hope to
straighten it out after the fact?



These other issues are contingencies specifically addressed in the
contract. Finding a problem at final inspection is not a breach.



It's not clear to you that a seller who removes light fixtures and
toilets prior to closing has violated the contract?


I think you are going to have a hard time convincing a judge to
declare the sale void because of these. He's likely going to have the
seller pay to replace them and the contract remains in force.


The situation is drastically different. BEFORE closing, the buyer is
in an excellent position to get resolution. If he just cowers in fear
that he must close and can't even delay the closing to get it resolved,
then the chance of ever seeing money is reduced. Did you ever sue
anyone and try to collect? You make it sound like it's simple. How
much time and money is that gonna take, regardless of whether you
recover anything? Suppose the seller has moved 2000 miles away.
Then what? Or if the seller is judgement proof, as would not be
unusual to find for a scum bag that would remove fixtures from a house.


The risk is that the buyer doesn't get the house at all.



Dimitri

An appliance can be a significant alteration. If I see a home and it
has Subzero fridge and gourmet cooking equipment and no mention of
exclusion is made I assume I'll get the good stuff. If at walkthrough
all appliances are garage sale junk I'm calling my lawyer and there
will be NO closing until he has the money from seller for items I
assumed I'm getting or the same quality items are put in the house as
the kitchen may have been a reason I'm buying the house. If a
fireplace was bricked up it would be the same as it may be a reason for
my buying the house. I know my lawyer would be on it and would not
allow me to close with that type of game being played. A light fixture
I probably would care less but to me (and my lawyer) $10000 worth of
substituted appliance would be a *significant* difference worthy of
prompt attention. Remember, no contract is set in stone if one party
doesnt adhere to his part.

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

All I know is Iwouldnt you you working for me as a buyer's agent.
You'd accept anything a dirtbag seller tried just to close and get a
commission. This thread shows how vital it is to get a good lawyer.
Maybe in CA things are different but in NJ only a dumb newyorker would
close if the property was significantly different.


Replacing an appliance with a like (but less valuable) appliance is
not a significant difference. If I was your buyer's broker, I'd probably
suggest that you add an addendum to the purchase agreement spelling out
that the final inspection *is* a contingency. I am letting you know
what the standard contract (at least in CA) says. However, like I said
in another post, if you *do* use it as a contingency then the contract is
not in force and you will not be buying the house unless the seller
agrees to your request. So, it depends on if you really want to buy
the house or if you are content to let it go based upon the difference
in appliances. If the latter, you can sue for the difference later.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

According to you and what you say your professor says. And I say from
my reading of that section of the contract, it says that the
walkthrough cannot be used to cancel closing based on some new finding.


Exactly. Some new finding, such as one appliance being switched for
another. That's a new finding.

No, a new finding would be now complaining and demanding repair of
flaking paint or cracks in the foundation, that were there all along.
You continue to ignore that the contract excerpt you posted says the
purpose of the walkthrough is to verify that the property has been
maintained and the seller has met their obligations under the
agreement. Given that it says that, I would interpret it to mean that
the walkthrough cannot be used as a condition of closing, except for
those listed reasons. And removing fixtures certainly is not
maintaining the property, nor is it fulfilling the sellers reqts of the
contract.

(i) the Property is maintained pursuant to paragraph 7A;
(ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed; and
(iii) Seller has complied with Seller's other obligations under this
Agreement."



They can file a suit to force closing if they really want to. The judge
may do it or the judge may not. At that point you are in litigation
and the contract remains in force unless/until the judge decides
otherwise.


Sure they can file a lawsuit. Then they can wait a year for it to
be heard. And that is if the buyer doesn't drag it out, in which case
it could take 2 years. Now, how practical is that as opposed to just
resolving the issue right now, before closing?


We're not talking about practicality. However, you seem to think that
drawing it out will only hurt the seller. In reality, it can hurt
both parties.

I sure am talking practicality.




This is true, but is rather beside the point. In a real transaction,
both sides are aware of the realities and (usually) work toward
a solution that makes sense.

It's not beside the point. It is the point. Because you are
suggesting some dire consequences await the buyer, who upon discovering
the seller has removed all the fixtures in the house, decides to even
delay the closing, unitl it is resolved. In reality, holding the
seller's feet to the fire BEFORE closing is the best leverage the buyer
has.


You (as the buyer) can threaten, but they are idle threats. A reasonable
seller may listen, but imagine if you encounter an unreasonable seller.


The seller doesn't have to threaten. All they have to do is refuse to
close until the issue of the removed fixtures is resolved.




It gets even better. So, now one party can breach a contract, do
whatever they want, and they other party is forevever bound to continue
with the contract, regardless? This is assinine. Suppose the buyer
breached the contract by not coming up with the rest of the down
payment on time? Is the seller then bound to continue the sale? Or
how about if the seller breachs the contract by not being able to get a
CO, is the buyer then obligated to buy the house anyway and hope to
straighten it out after the fact?



These other issues are contingencies specifically addressed in the
contract. Finding a problem at final inspection is not a breach.

Again, according to you, who wants the seller to just roll over. I
say it is a breach when the seller removes light fixtures and toilets.
Seller and you doesn;t think it is? Fine, sue me and let a judge
decide. How long is or practical is that, compared to the seller then
doing the right thing now and rectifying it?







It's not clear to you that a seller who removes light fixtures and
toilets prior to closing has violated the contract?


I think you are going to have a hard time convincing a judge to
declare the sale void because of these. He's likely going to have the
seller pay to replace them and the contract remains in force.

That could very well be the case, if the seller wants to sue and wait a
year, with the property tied up, instead of replacing the fixtures
right now and then closing.




The situation is drastically different. BEFORE closing, the buyer is
in an excellent position to get resolution. If he just cowers in fear
that he must close and can't even delay the closing to get it resolved,
then the chance of ever seeing money is reduced. Did you ever sue
anyone and try to collect? You make it sound like it's simple. How
much time and money is that gonna take, regardless of whether you
recover anything? Suppose the seller has moved 2000 miles away.
Then what? Or if the seller is judgement proof, as would not be
unusual to find for a scum bag that would remove fixtures from a house.


The risk is that the buyer doesn't get the house at all.

Yes, that's true. But in most cases, if someone pulled this crap on
me, I'd tell them to either rectify it before closing, or they can keep
the house. There are plenty of other houses out there and I would be
leary of what other things, perhaps even worse, the dishonest seller
pulled or covered up that I don't know about





Dimitri