In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 6 Oct 2022 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT),
"Leonard S." <
leonard.skemp@gmail.com> wrote:
A sale of residential property included 45-days long stay after closing under Temporary Occupancy Agreement. It required a two weeks’ notice if Seller wants to move out earlier and a Final Walkthrough on the day before the end of possession. Both
terms have been breached.
By which you mean a) the seller moved out earlier than 45 days and
without giving notice to the buyer. IANAL but what are the damages if
he moves out *earlier*. Was he supposed to keep the furnace running
and he didn't and the pipes froze and broke? Other than something like
that, it seems good for the buyer if the seller moves out early.
b) since there was no notice, there was no chance to
do a walkthough. IANAL but what are the damages from not having a walkthrough. It seems like it's not the walkthough that causes damages
but the damages made between the sale and vacating the home. If there
was a deposit intended to pay for such damages, and it was for a reason
I don't understand releaseed early or even improperly, the buyer's
remedy is a lawsuit just as if there had never been a deposit.
(Wouldnt' this be true if say, the seller had vandalized the house
before leaving in a way that wasn't apparent during a normal walkthough?
Maybe he removed the electronic controls from the HVAC system, or he
removed a sound system that was a fixture or listed in the sales
contract as included in the sale. If during a walkthrough, a buyer
doesn't realize these have been improperly removed, don't tell me that
the buyer is stuck? What if someone sold a used car and after the test
drive and the contract was signed, but before the price was paid and the registration changed, the seller removed the engine? Is that a clear
cause of action?
Consecutively, Seller authored and Buyer counter-signed a dated Mutual Release of Claims under which Buyer got the Temporary Occupancy security deposit (1/800 of the purchase price).
In Consideration of a Full and Final Settlement:
(Sellers) hereby release in full the funds being held by (Title company) that is part of the Temporary Occupancy
So the Title company is off the hook. They released the money to the
buyer according to the Mutual Release of Claaim.
Agreement for the real estate transaction for the property located at (address) to (Buyers).
To the extent permitted by applicable law, each party releases the other party from any and all liability, damage, loss, cost, or expense incurred by the releasing party relating to the purchase and sale of (address). It is agreed that the signing of
this agreement is not deemed to be an admission of liability on the part of either party. <<
So this is the problem. Why does it say the buyer is releasing the
seller before the planned walkthrough, which never happened? I thought deposits were released after walkthoughs, becaus otherwise, what is the
point of a walkthough?
IANAL but it seems the buyer gets to keep his 1/800 no matter how much
damage there is to the house. Is it more than the depost. If the
house is 240,000, 1/800 is 3000. If iit's a million it's 12,000. It's
easly to leave 12,000 dollars of damage behind, but he has the 12,000.
How much greater are the dmages than 12,000?
Should this be understood as covering just the breach of Temporary Occupancy Agreement and expenses “incurred? (that is up to the date of Release)? Or would it bar Buyer from any claims on the post-Release expenses to fix the defects predating the
closing but marked as problem-free by Seller in Property Condition Disclosure? Seller responded via email that waving Home Inspection made Buyer ineligible to bring forward any claims based on Property Condition Disclosure.
When did the buyer waive the home inspection? This sounds like an
illusory defense. If this is all he's got, the buyer may be in good
shape for a lawsuit after all.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)