Should a real estate agent bear the expense of turning on utilities on a vacant home or should the buyer? Here in California more and more vacant homes do not have the utilities on because they are either banked owned or a short sale in process (and having the utilities off discourages squatters). HUD makes it apparent that they are not responsible for having the utilities on any of their properties, and it is up to the agents or the buyer to have them turned on for any inspections at the agents or buyers expense.
So when faced with having a physical inspection done on a property, inspections cannot take place until the utilities are on. Here is the challenge, this may seem trivial, many times short sales and bank owned properties deals do not close, and turning utilities on can be a nice tidy expense. So, many listing agents -- due to the risk of escrows not closing are asking the buyers to bear the cost. Is this a reasonable request to ask of a buyer? What if the buyer does except the responsibility and escrow does not close.
Comments (4)Subscribe to CommentsComment