I recently represented clients in the purchase of an older home. The seller didn’t know where she was going to move to, and so requested a long escrow period. My clients were in no hurry, as they wanted to rent their current home before purchasing another, so an escrow period of almost eight weeks was agreed upon. My clients subsequently signed a rental contract on their current home effective two weeks after close of escrow, which gave them only that much time to prepare the new home for occupancy and to clean out their old house.
There was a lot of work to do in the new house, but most of it could wait until my clients moved in. There were several things, however, that had to be done prior to that. Among these were removing wall paper from three bedrooms, removing some built-ins, repairing sheetrock and painting the entire 2400 square foot home, including ceilings, with multiple coats of paint. My clients had a short period after closing in which to have all this work done and move out of their old house, and would need to have workmen ready to go immediately after close of escrow. The estimates for this work would not affect whether they would purchase the home, so I informed the listing agent that we would be getting estimates for the work after the inspection period was over. She assured me that this would be no problem.
The inspections went well. I arranged for the home and termite inspectors to be there the same morning. The termite inspector had to pay a second visit, and we had a separate inspection by a roofer. We came up with a list of repairs that we asked the seller to make, which she agreed to, and my clients signed off on the inspections.
We now had a period of about six weeks before close of escrow. My clients started calling contractors to get estimates. I called the listing agent to make an appointment and was told, despite earlier assurances, that the seller had been inconvenienced enough by the inspections, that she was having a hard time dealing with her move, and would not allow us to come back into her home before the final walkthrough. This was a shock on a number of levels. First, we had done the inspections as efficiently as possible, entering the house on only two separate occasions. Second, selling a house is an inconvenience under the best of circumstances, which the Seller should have understood before listing her home. And finally, I had cleared this with the listing agent in advance. She said that she was sorry, but that these were her seller’s wishes.
I spoke to my sales manager and we reviewed the contract. The Arizona resale purchase contract does state that “Seller shall make the Premises available for all inspections and walkthrough(s) upon reasonable notice by Buyer.” But this phrase is in the Due Diligence section of the contract. My clients had completed their due diligence, and this was neither an inspection nor a walkthrough. Apparently, the seller was within her rights. I was finally able to negotiate with the listing agent to allow us to come in once, and we would need to have all the workmen there at the same time. This limited my clients to only one estimate for each specialty. They could not very well have two painters show up at the same time, for example. If my clients did not like the painter that they brought in, they would have to wait to interview someone else until after close of escrow, when there would be less than two weeks until a 2400 square foot home had to be completely painted. My clients were furious – at me of course. They had little choice but to go with the contractors that they interviewed on the one occasion that we were allowed access to the house, even though they were less than thrilled with the painter. As it turned out, the painter was unsatisfactory and my clients kicked him out after a few days. They had to move in before the work had been completed, costing them both a major inconvenience and additional expense. They would have chosen a difference one had they had the opportunity.
This was the first time that I had run into this situation, but I am determined that it will be the last. In Arizona, Realtors are permitted to add clauses to the standard contract, and I have been working on one to cover this situation, such as:
“Seller shall make the Premises available for additional visits subsequent to the Inspection Period upon reasonable notice by Buyer. If Seller wishes to restrict visits by the Buyer, the Seller shall make this known during the Inspection Period.”
What I don’t like about this wording is the use of the term “reasonable”. I don’t like to use a term whose meaning is open to interpretation, even though similar terms are used elsewhere in the Arizona contract. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Comments(1)