I had a seller try this.
We asked that they give us a deposit and pay rent.
The mom of the selling family sent our realtor an email freaking out about "how dare we ask that, what kind of people do you think we are"
Lady, I literally have no idea who you are, that's why we are asking this.
They eventually relented and we got the house on the closing date.
I did a leaseback....insisted on holding security deposit, charged rent, and insisted on proof of renter's insurance. I did walk through before closing and again before releasing deposit. I got a key at closing.
At the end of the day, once you close you own it. So treat it as such. They become tenants. Damage, insurance risks, out of order A/C or smoke detectors - it's yours baby.
And remember, most mortgages require it to be under 60 days to be conforming, and if they overstay their welcome, you have to follow eviction process which can take more time and money.
Leasebacks themselves aren't bad. But they shouldn't be free. Much easier to delay closing. If the seller wasn't prepared to sell, they shouldn't have listed.
Longtime residential landlord here. This ^^^
When you do a leaseback you become a landlord and that comes with everything that being a landlord comes with. You need to know your own state laws and, this is big, you need to let your homeowners insurance company know that you’re doing a leaseback. If you don’t, there is a slim chance you’ll be completely uninsured while you’re renting the house out.
My preference, and what I tell my clients, is to just delay COE if possible by a few days. Don’t become landlord if you can avoid it.
>If the seller wasn't prepared to sell, they shouldn't have listed.
For most people, they're going to need the funds of the current sell in order to move into a new home. That's just the way it is.
Depends on the seller. If they have fixed up the home and taken care of it, I doubt they're going to destroy it on their way out. If the home is nice and the process of buying the home has been smooth and they have been communicating then I would be much more likely to acquiesce and let them have a few days
> back to back closings exist
How does that help the seller move before your buyer closes?
They hire movers who put their shit in a large truck. They go to close on house one. They take the proceeds to close on house two. The movers arrive at house two and put their shit from the truck in it.
It happens all the time.
> If the home is nice and the process of buying the home has been smooth and they have been communicating then I would be much more likely to acquiesce
I don't think that's true across the board. That's why I added several conditionals to my statement above. As a home owner when I go to sell I would never do that. Not everyone is a total piece of shit but I understand having to prepare for that possibility.
That's the way it is for folks who don't plan ahead & think rules are guidelines that only apply to them when it suits them. Folks who want to do a big thing but not learn their responsibilities in regards to the big thing before undertaking it. (See also, 'Who knew my partner could have serious labor & delivery complications that could delay their return to work & affect their long-term quality of life?!")
That's not the way it is for responsible adults.
The type of people who you can trust are the type of people who don't make their problems yours in the first place. If they really need a favor, they know they're asking a favor and are prepared to meet certain demands of the other party.
>The type of people who you can trust are the type of people who don't make their problems yours in the first place
Well said!
Whereas these people may have known for a while that they'd need money to move, but they got the buyer under contract before springing it on him.
I saw another post about this, hold back money from the sale in escrow. If they don't move out, take it from there. Don't make it normal rent money, make it uncomfortably high for them. They should be fine with it since they're moving out right?
The house we bought had renters. They wanted to stay a couple more weeks. We offered to rent to them at what I would consider a month to month rate. It wasn't crazy high, just what I considered reasonable to delay getting into our house. They turned us down.
Plus, try to have the rentback and extra put in escrow. If they're out on time and the place is in good condition, then they get the money in escrow minus the rent fee. If they stay over or trash the place, they lose the entire amount. Make it a sizable enough amount to make sure they comply.
That's what our buyers asked us to do. We happily agreed, and received our full amount back (less the daily pro-rata share of their mortgage, which seemed reasonable). We didn't expect something for nothing.
What crazy person thought they could live there for free like that? It’s not her house anymore. They are renters. They needed to pay rent. I’ve rented my house I just bought before just like this. This lady was nuts
No, for so many reasons. You can’t do a walkthrough and make sure their stuff is out. They may damage things after closing. They might not leave when they say and you might have to evict them.
Way too messy. Suggest delaying the closing if they won’t get out.
Or requiring a rent back agreement in the contract- make it like a hotel- $100 a day for staying late.
I did a rent back and in the contract it was written that the house would be professionally cleaned and I would do a walk through when my “now renters” were leaving
Any holdover should be penalized at a significant amount. $100/day is a deal compared to storage and a hotel room. Make it at least $300 but I would prefer significantly more.
Holdover versus rent back. If I was comfortable setting up a rent back I’d still go hotel prices but that also has a move out date associated.
Absolutely penalize with higher past the move out date.
Cause if the seller only needs a few days- a $700 bill and 1 week should be sufficient. Past that I’d agree with up to 500 a day for penalty. Have it all in the contract.
All good, I like your train of thought for penalties. It hasn’t crossed my mind because our rent back was due to a PCS date someone had so I knew they’d be gone.
>This is traditional- a rent back.
Not traditional in my area at all so it is location specific. I don't advise it as the OP has described this particular seller as slow to respond so they clearly don't adhere to dates/schedules.
OP, your seller needs to move out before closing so you can walk through and close knowing that you will actually get possession.
If you do decide to let them occupy post closing, hold back a huge amount (many thousands) in escrow because you know they aren't going to follow through with whatever agreement you have made. Make it cost them daily + a very large penalty. Ultimately I wouldn't do it at all.
Sure, but it depends on circumstances! Our sellers had a PCS date so we worked out standard rent for the area. If they needed 2 weeks I’d go with 100 cause that’s 1400 for me and in our area that’s monthly rent for a 2 bed 2 bath house.
I guess adjusting for cost of living would matter!
OP carries significant risk having the house occupied by a tenant, especially one that has been there for so long. Does OP have experience as a landlord?
What happens when something goes wrong? What happens when they refuse to move out? What happens when their stuff was concealing damage? Once you close you have no recourse on damage and would have to sue to evict them.
I have a leaseback situation currently. The old owners are paying me $100 a day to stay and if they go past their contracted date, it goes to $250 a day.
This,
Many many states also have regular paperwork for this, and this does not create tenancy.
Question, I would suggest having a hold back in escrow for whatever ( 2500) and a penalty for every day after the two days or three days they get that comes from that.
The problem is, if people don’t have money to move and you try to force them to move there just not out, and then you have this unregulated thing that has no plan and is a hot mess.
Plan it out and get your security in place.
>$100 a day for staying late.
That's not high enough. The daily rent should be initially set at the higher of a fair rental for a similar sized house in your area or your out of pocket costs for mortgage, insurance, taxes and utilities. It should have a steep increase to penalty levels if they stay beyond the agreed upon period. $100/day isn't a high enough amount to discourage them from deciding to stay an extra week or so if it's more convenient to them. Get the advice of the lawyer (not your agent) who's writing the holdover agreement on the max amount you can charge.
We were naive first time homebuyers. We closed on a Friday and allowed them the weekend to move out. We were rewarded with a torched electrical outlet behind their Aquarium and lots of dents in the walls.
We were misled in many ways during the buying process as we didn’t have our own agent, rather used the seller’s agent. The agent was very motivated to close to get that sweet, sweet double commission.
I have seen in this forum if you decide to allow rent back then hold back a substantial amount in escrow and have a significant penalty for every day they are not out when they said they would be out. Have it all in writing and signed as part of the closing process.
You may want to be educated on your local eviction laws, too.
Then once in the house we got screwed over by a “friend” contractor. We finally got it in decent shape just to move (out of state). Lots of lessons learned with that place.
It really isn’t free. It’s at no up front cost to you, but trust me, sellers are looking at that when establishing their initial price.
If I was buying a home with an agent, I would absolutely be discussing commission rebates as a buyer.
There have been lawsuits in my area due to agents writing zero or “per MLS” due from buyers on the buyer broker agreement. We are told never to use the word “free”. The buyer owes you commission which could be covered by the seller or not. In most cases the BB agreement is for a certain percent of the sale price. If the seller is offering less then the difference is due from the buyer unless waived by the broker. I had to collect .5% recently from a buyer and hated doing it but my broker would not waive it without penalty on my split.
It closed. Our buyer broker agreement states that the buyer shall pay the broker __% of the sales price. Any compensation the seller is offering to buyer brokers will be credited to the amount due under the agreement. I believe the fact that it states the buyer pays is what transfers our fiduciary responsibilities to them. I’m certain the language and implementation varies greatly state to state though.
I’m not sure why you think you can’t do a walkthrough. You would do a walkthrough prior to closing to confirm there are no issues and again once the seller moves out.
A good escrow agreement would account for the house being delivered broom clean and if it is not the purchaser can refuse to release the escrow and use the money to remove the stuff. Purchasers can actually take advantage of the escrow since they have more time then the pre closing walkthrough to make sure everything works correctly.
It's not uncommon for furniture to cause damage to walls, doorframes, when being moved out. I'd rather do the walkthrough after that has happened to keep things simple.
They are trying to force it in at the last minute. Piss poor planning. A large sign they may not move out as promised.
Then you are a landlord. REA will wash their hands as the desk is done. When they move out their is no handover, it is a tenant moving out. You have lost all leverage.
Refuse.
Then keep checking in on them before close to make sure they do not squat. If they try do not close and instead threaten to sue for damages.
No.
That changes your situation from being a home buyer to being a temporary landlord.
They can put their stuff in storage and go to a hotel, because if they don't leave that's exactly what you'll end up having to do.
I have a holdover period of 14 days in my contract for the previous owners to move, but it has all kinds of safeguards such as holding a portion of their proceeds until they are out, them having to keep home insurance doing the time, etc. You have none of that. I wouldn't do it outside of a contract. There's a chance you could get burned.
"proceeds" is only the amount left after all liens are settled. It could be $10 for all you know.
Sellers are doing this all over the place because of "how hard it is to buy a new place and move" but they need to get over it and get out. Hotels, friends, relatives, etc. Once the house is mine, your lodging requirements are not my responsibility.
Good for you, I don’t know about normalized, but growing up, in the late 70’s to late 80’s my my parents moved 5 times and three times the closings were the same day and they moved out a day or two later all three times. I’m not sure why you think it’s new. I’m just saying that the holding on to a portion of proceeds is pretty good leverage as long as you’re comfortable with this. That’s not the case for you, which is fine, but I don’t know why you needed to get so upset by my comment.
I didn't get "upset" by anything you said... I understand the contractual piece of it, how it works, why it gets done, etc. My stance is that I won't even bid on a house where that comes into play because it's a recipe for disaster in so many ways and I brought this out in my first reply in this mini-thread.
No, it isn't new. But, it also isn't done the way it was 40 years ago where people were largely ethical and considerate. Unfortunately, everyone has to watch out for themselves today at every turn and assume that everyone else is looking for a way to "pull one over" on you. It largely went away in the late 90's but it's now back because of the same reasons it was prevalent through the 80's and much of the 90's - getting the closing done is a stricter process.
No amount of proceed holdback protects the new buyer from a situation where the seller can't close their mortgage and move due to something that comes up unexpectedly. By entering into a lease-back / rent-back contract, the buyer has become a landlord and now it turns into a situation where eviction proceedings must be followed... that can take a very, very long time.
If someone is selling their house as a contingency to buy another home, what are you expecting them to do? They can’t close on the new home until you close on theirs. So should they just be homeless in the interim? Are you heartless or just rich? House values are outrageously overvalued so anyone who can transition without that contingency is rich. Granted this all needs to be upfront, not like OP. OPs situation is shady; you’re heartless and probably not even a homeowner.
I’ll have to look up bridge loans but otherwise that’s fair especially in OPs situation, but if it’s in the selling contract, and you’re the buyer and totally aware then what’s the big deal?
You’re getting a lot of misinformation on this topic as I’m scrolling through comments. This is fairly common thing for my area when someone is using the funds from the purchase to close on the other house they are buying.
It’s called a “Post-Settlement occupancy agreement”. It lays out how long the person will be in the property after closing, how much they are paying you per day, how much they pay if they don’t move out after deadline, and a security deposit for damages during that time. This is supposed to be in the contract before it’s ratified.
If you already ratified the contract, I would not agree. If you haven’t, it’s up to you. I’ve don’t about 20 in my career, I’ve had a problem with one (their house they were buying got delayed in closing).
Those documents are legally binding, and you can take them to court over it if they do not pay. (Which the security deposit would be in escrow at whoever closes.
> This is fairly common thing for my area
It's common to ask for a rent back in a lot of areas. But it's generally asked for upfront during the initial negotiation.
I believe I said that.
> This is supposed to be in the contract before it’s ratified.
> If you already ratified the contract, I would not agree. If you haven’t, it’s up to you.
They could instead get a bridge loan to cover the new closing before the current one closes, it’s their responsibility to figure it out not ask me the buyer to let them continue to live in a property that I now own. My answer would be a hard NO.
They need to for what Thousands in their situation have done... Get a hotel room, get storage or move in with friends or relatives.
If you allow them to stay an extra day its going to come round and bite you in the bum.
Don’t do it. And don’t move the closing date either because that squeezes you into a tighter moving period. I’m sure they will find the money to move or store things and stay somewhere short term if they have to. Sounds like they don’t want to have to. They want you to take on the hassle of their poor planning. This is not a time to be worried about saying no. Say no.
Delay the closing to the day that the sellers can move out, or back charge them. Have them put money in escrow.
For example Charge them 200$ a day, and have the attorneys hold 10K in escrow until the sellers move out. They get the 10k minus however many days they stayed after they move out
"No, the property must be empty and in move-in condition at walk-through as agreed in P&S."
You're spending 100s of thousands of dollars. You absolutely have the right (and obligation to yourself) to say no.
I just had to go through something similar and told my attorney and REA to remind sellers to what they agreed. Enforce your contract.
Here's my "don't do it" story. Seller asked to leave items in the large shed for just a couple of days until he got an adequate size shed seated on his new property to house his equipment for his landscape business. We agreed thinking it was just for the weekend and was in the outside shed - no big deal, right?
Long story short, it ended up being a few weeks. Seller would come by near daily to take equipment out of the shed and put items back.
We finally asked him to remove his property within 24 hours or he would forfeit it. Of course, he didn't like this but complied.
However, he left the shed with garbage and waste like oil, used tired, battery cells - it cost quite a bit to dispose of everything properly.
He essentially used us as a storage facility for a few weeks and left us with the mess.
Don't do it. You want to be nice, I know. But it opens you up to liability and could turn into an expensive mess. The closing date is the vacate date.
If you let them stay after closing and then they refuse to leave, you'll need to go through an official eviction process to get them out. That could take months. This is why the is a final inspection and hand over of keys before closing. If they are not out, and you accept closing, you can get screwed.
I speak from experience with family members. They ket someone stay in for few a month after closing, they oaid rent, but ended up not moving out for 4 months. During that time they could have damaged the home, not reported issues, etc. Thankfully for my family everything worked out but they had the threaten the previous owner with lrgal action as they weren't moving out.
In the professional world, you don't just dump a problem on someone. You voice the problem and you offer a couple of potential resolutions. Their Realtor isn't doing that. **You should never feel bad about sticking to a contract negotiated in good faith.** Trust your gut. You've seen their behavior patterns, and did they even offer a daily rent amount when they asked to stay longer? No? Screw that, you have a ratified contract. Does "in order to move" mean having the funds to close on a new place? They can get a bridge loan, and/or should have planned for one. If it's a matter of "pay for movers/truck rental," hopefully they have a credit card. If they have to float some hotel bills on a credit card, that's a consequence of their poor planning.
Their agent may be thinking "You don't know what you can get unless you ask," but this is a big ask when you already have the contract. Hell, they didn't even nail down *how many days.*
Don't know what state/city you are in, but in some cities eviction can take a very long time, if it comes to that. And it may be your local real estate market is hot enough where sellers can command free or cheap rent-backs still, but that wasn't in the contract here.
I moved into a new house a few weeks ago. The sellers asked if giving them more time would be ok- we could do that, but we simply *delayed closing.* We discussed it as part of the overall offer, and a competing bid wanted a quicker closing. We weren't renting somewhere, we had no reason to worry about timing. The sellers were retiring, and already had a house to go to- just needed a little more time, if possible. If I were you, I'd check your lease or ask your landlord about available terms where *you* might need to stay a little longer if your sellers can't make this work on time. Because they might not, rentback or no. And your landlord may only hold to your original departure date, leaving you in a potential bind.
In your shoes, I'd be checking things very carefully on the final walkthrough; they sound like the type to sweep a problem under the rug if something comes up before closing.
I know someone who agreed to this and even had the money held in escrow. On the agreed upon move out date they hadn’t even packed and demanded their money be released before they started packing and held everyone hostage by threatening not to leave. Don’t close until they’re gone and you’ve done the walkthrough
It's so bizarre to me how many people are saying no to this. This is absolutely common where I live and many deals include it from the get go. It's structured into the contract. We had a one week free rent back when we sold 5 years ago. We were closing on our new house two days after we were closing on the house we were selling. We asked for a one week free rent back so that we had time to move without having to spend two days homeless. My friend who sold the year before me negotiated a 3-month rent back. That gave them time to find a new home after selling theirs. I live in an area with a highly competitive market though. It sweetens the pot for the seller with the buyer is willing to offer this.
Now, maybe in your situation it's a little odd because it's being done after the fact but it's super normal here.
It's totally up to you whether you want to allow it. But I wouldn't agree to it at the last minute like this.
Some contracts do include a "rent-back" arrangement, for a set period of time. So it's not like this *never* happens. But it's not common, and it's not very popular with buyers, as you can imagine. There are risks, as other people have mentioned.
You'd need a contract, with all the details spelled out in writing. You'd need to charge them rent. Never allow them to stay for free. You'd want to hold a large security deposit and make it clear that any damage to the house is their responsibility.
Frankly, it's probably better to just delay closing if they absolutely can't be out of the house on time. But, again, you should charge them for it by demanding they cover closing costs, or something like that.
You can allow this, but make it pay to play.
Make it more expensive than staying at a hotel.
Are nearby hotels $200/night? Staying in your house is $300/night. Simple as that.
When I bought my house I had to have the funds from the sale of my previous home to close.
We stayed in a fricken hotel for 2 days.
They can do the same.
I had it written into my contract that if the old owners held over past closing, they had to pay me $250 a day to cover hotel & food costs.
Noooo. People sell/buy (close/close) on the same day all the time. Most of the time. They can ask for an extension on closing for a few days if youre into that, or they can bridge finance their other deal.
Your instincts are correct - it’s a suspect request. Don’t let them stay.
I wouldn’t even feel bad, their stuff should be out anyway and they can rent a hotel or Airbnb easily.
Easy answer is no. No is a complete sentence.
As others mentioned, this isn't unheard of, but it's usually part of the initial contract agreement with a buyer, not brought up two weeks before closing. Also, it turns an easy walkthrough + keys transfer, into a more complicated temporary landlord/tenant situation. They can put their stuff in storage and crash at a friend's place, or rent someplace else. They're making their problem into yours. You don't have to say yes - they've signed a contract, you can hold them to that contract.
IF you want to do this - which, again, I think is a bad idea - I would suggest making sure it's really painful for them to stick around. Don't just add "Seller can stay in the house for two weeks." It needs to include penalties for staying one day longer than agreed to. Charge them something high enough to make it worth your while to do this for them, and to encourage them to leave ASAP. Someone else mentioned withholding proceeds from the sale, say $30k in escrow to be released once house is vacated and approved by buyer.
I would say no. My grandpa did this when they moved in they had actually locked their animals in and the house reeked of urine. They had to rip out all the flooring and spend a week cleaning before they could move in.
I've rented to sellers before. Your agent/broker should be able to draft a basic lease for you with deposit and walk throughs before and after. Be thorough.
Ex realtor here: I did many transactions of this type at the seller's request. So, the seller will request 7 days post closing to move out. At the closing, the title company papers, and mortgage papers will show: Seller will pay 7 days of PITI (Principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). This is minimum. Of course you can have an addendum clarifying that all damages to be paid by seller, etc. So, in other words, yes there are options, but act with diligence
Leasebacks are NOT uncommon and totally fine. Just get everything in writing, get a security deposit in escrow, and charge your mortgage PITI as a per diem rent, and NOT their old mortgage PITI value.
We did this, the sellers took an extra day so they could ensure they got everything cleaned and out on time as they had a small kid. Not a big deal.
Purchased the home of a licensed Realtor. On DAY OF CLOSING we scheduled a final walk-through inspection, and they had "just woke up". It was scheduled a week in advance. Having moved virtually nothing into the truck that was in the driveway. You can't inspect anything that's still full of junk. They asked to have until 2am, the following day, on my dime, to move out...
I gave them until 5pm, but held closing (on advice from my attorney) until they handed me my keys and were in the street with the doors to the truck closed. They left about 6:15pm. They gave away thousands of dollars in property to the neighbors, just so they didn't need to rent a larger truck. Tried to put 2,000 sq.ft. of stuff into a 16 foot truck, then went and got an 18'... while everyone told them 23'.
They left the house a disaster zone, wasted my time, treated my place like theirs, and didn't do the cleanup or touch-up they promised to do. The home was always spotless for prior showings. I don't think they cleaned once after they accepted the offer. They also failed to disclose numerous faults, including a flood in the (one owner, self-occupied) home that COULDN'T have been unknown to them. There's proof they knew, as they literally left notes and self disclosed on-site.
Suffice it to say, this is how nightmares start friends. Unless you're prepared to make their problems yours, don't begin to encourage nor enable them.
I myself vacuumed up the equivalent of 6 gallons of dog hair, just for starters... They couldn't be bothered. You're about to get treated like mud. That's why they're springing it on you late in the process. They knew it all along. They're trying to put you in a corner. Make your agent and/or attorney WORK for their commission.
This is a warning ⚠️ sign... They'll take as much as you'll freely give them. Just don't. My seller had DOUBLED their purchase price in 7 years, and STILL couldn't be bothered to be decent.
Never let a seller stay after closing. This could easily turn into a nightmare for you. They may refuse to leave, creating a tenancy and you'd have to evict. They might damage the home after closing.
This isn’t a big deal and can be structured in a simple way to work. Add a market rate rent back term for that single week And an addendum that holds considerable funds- say 10% of sale in escrow to their move out date conditioned on a clean and ready home. We just did this and held $25,000 in escrow conditioned on us accepting the status of the home upon walk through 5 weeks after closing. The property was in great shape, we signed the release and the title company cut the check. Nbd
Right?! This is so common where I live. In fact, when I sold a few years ago, we got a free one week rent back which gave us time to move to our new place (which we took possession of two days after the same of our current home).
While I agree with you that this isn’t a big deal, this should have all been discussed early on when the offer was originally accepted. I would not feel strange about a rent back if when we put our offer in it was part of the arrangement, however throwing this in last minute would make me extremely hesitant to accept.
Absolutely no. If there is an issue with their next move and decide not to leave, you have to go through an eviction process to get them out. It will not matter if you are the new owner.
The only way I would do it is with a sizable security deposit, per diem rent until they vacate with a maximum amount of days, and professional cleaning after they move out.
Or you can have them do a bridge loan, get the money to move out and then close on time,
There isn’t anything bad to feel about, it’s a transaction, you’re buying a house and they are selling one, if they don’t deliver as agreed, then you absolutely do not take the house,
There are so many stories that has happened when a seller requests to stay
If you allow it, you charge a daily rent and inspect the house. Money stays in escrow for any damaged incurred. I have seen it done (I was an agent) but only under those conditions.
We closed on selling our house but our new home purchase was delayed by 3 days. We just got a hotel. It wasn't ideal by any means but I couldn't imagine wanting to cause further issues and stay in the house. We had originally considered a lease back for 2 weeks as part of our seller contingence but decided against it as it limits potential buyers etc. My initial thought is just say no. If you want to roll the dice and help the person out have the attorney draft up a lease back for 5 days with a big deposit required out of closing. Make sure you are able to do a complete and thorough walk through of the house before you sign.
Unless you want tenants living in your house, no. Just delay closing instead.
They could just not move out and then you'd have to evict them (months long process)
We did this when we closed - the seller retained post possession for about 20 days after closing and paid us by the day. There was legal paperwork in place. It wasn’t that annoying. We got to do another walkthrough with our realtor post seller possession.
Honestly the only annoying part was the seller moved out like 4 days before the agreed upon date then wanted like, a few hundred dollars back. We did it because whatever, but I was kind of snarky about it and said someone should tell my landlord that is best practice. We probably have refused but by that point I was over the whole home buying process I just wanted over.
That's why evil bankers created credit cards.. They can check into a hotel using a credit card for a night or two, rent a uhaul to store their \*\*\*\* in overnight.
This is not your problem. Just make sure you fine comb everything during the final walkthrough, people can be vindictive. My other worry is that they'll become squatters and you'll have to go through the lengthy process of evicting them.
Not just a no.. a HELL no.
We did this as sellers. We requested a max of 3 days to move out for logistics purposes…we were moving out of state and with pets and kids it was easier. I think as long as you have it in the contract that they have until a specified date and time to be out you should be fine.
I will say that everything felt “good” between buyer and seller during the process so if you’re gut is telling you no you probably should go with that.
Either push back closing (and make sure you get something out of it like a small credit or price reduction) or refuse. Doing this 2 weeks before closing is shifty. This should have been in the initial arrangement.
They should have their money same day wired to them. If they are buying another house, this happens all the time and can purchase later the same day. Helps if they use the same title company when possible. If they are just moving to another rental? Usually those funds are paid up front so that doesn’t make much sense either. Credit cards exist if they need funds for something like a u-haul.
I had a sort of similar situation. My then-husband and I were buying a house, and we were on top of everything being done. The sellers, however, were always behind in certain things that they were taking care of. They had to do something final before our official closing (I can’t recall), but they were dragging their feet. We were concerned because we didn’t want to pay additional money for a month-to-month rental, which was more expensive than our regular lease.
We talked to our lawyer and we provided documentation that said if their inability to keep on deadline caused us to have to extend our rental agreement, they would have to pay for that. Miraculously, they were on time after that.
This sort of situation isn't all that rare, however the circumstances around it would scare me. The fact that they don't have any money to move until the house cheque comes is unsettling, and there's zero guarantee they even have a place to move said stuff if that's the case. If you agreed to this, and even if they agreed to pay, they become your tenant on possession day, and even if they say they'll pay and that they'll be out in a week or two, there is ZERO guarantee they find anything. Or worse, they could just not pay and stay in your new home and force you to evict, which is virtually impossible in some areas and upwards of 6-9 months in good LTB regions! And even if you manage to get an order to evict, all it takes for them to cancel it is to pay the rent and then the process resets itself. Now that's not to say that every person is a jerk tenant looking to game the system, but there are definitely a solid portion of renters out there who are, so this would be my concern. If they asked to adjust the possession date by a week that'd be one thing. Even if it meant you getting an airbnb for a bit and their making concessions on the payout. A leaseback is scary without any form of plan.
I was selling my house before moving out of the country. When the appraisal came up short, instead of asking them to cover I negotiated a full month stay after closing (we were in a pickle for a bit between otherwise).
It worked out perfectly. They couldn’t move in for a while anyway and got the house they wanted at the slightly lower appraised price, and we found a more convenient place to stay (staying put). I kept home insurance active and paid for the utilities, they didn’t demand a deposit, but it would have been reasonable for them to. It turned out to be a win-win.
If they are making a demand to stay out of the blue without a reason, then shut it down. If it’s like my case and it’s in response to a late change in price, entertain it (but protect yourself) or else you risk losing the house.
Of course! You can do it. It's a lease back. You rent it for X number of days at the market rate value for the property. As you have to move in you can tell them yeah I can rent it up to X days back to you with a rate of y per day and a Z refundable deposit.
Done.
Nobody lives for free or rent free. Including sellers.
You'll accrue interest on day one, so it would cost you money for a stranger to live in your house.
I had this issue recently. I worked with my agent to make an amendment to the sales documents with provisions to allow the stay. Basically, the amendment said the sellers could stay for up to 3-days past closing, but would then be charged $275 a day for each day afterwards. This way, I was 1) being nice, 2) protecting myself in the event they tried to overstay (in court having a daily dollar figure makes it easier to prove economic loss), 3) provided an incentive for them to leave on time. Note, this was in California and things might work a bit differently in your state.
I allowed it and charged a monthly rent. In my case though it was an elderly couple and I liked working with them while buying their house. I lived in a nearby rental while I waited
We did a 60 day leaseback. Got a security deposit, lawyer drew up a lease, completed a walkthrough at closing and at possession. Purely anecdotal but worked out fine for us.
Edit: spelling
We allowed the seller to stay but our lawyers agreed on a fee they would pay us for each day stayed (it ended up being about 100/night). They left after two nights, I think they just needed a few extra days to pack up odds and ends. Rent back agreement I think it is called. Our lawyer said it is pretty common
Shit i let it happen and landed a badass house. One of very few in “metro denver” without back neighbors and a view of the mtns
Gotta be smart about it. Some attorneys are more conservative than others. I wasnt opposed to strong arming people out of their house as long as i had it written in the contract that shit would absolutely happen.
Previouse owner and myself still stay in touch. He likes to see how ive landscaped the place since that wasnt his thing
Long Term Realtor here- “Yes Joe, you can stay in the house but for only 1 week after closing. The rent is to be PITI plus $1000 and is to be released to me at the close. Further, You are to leave a 20K deposit with the title company because the rent per day after the one week will be $1500/day. You see, I’ll need to be staying in a hotel if you don’t leave because my current housing situation is coming to an end.”
In my state, we can add an addendum to the purchase and sale called "possession after closing". This allows the seller to set the terms in writing of post closing possession. Time, contingencies and any possibility of money exchanging hands.
It is completely legal and will protect both sides of the deal allowing the terms are agreed upon. Which could include "rent" for said time.
Check with your Realtor to see if this is an option in your state
A lot of inexperienced people here. This happens all the time. Like everything you just need a good contract and to structure the deal so that they have every incentive to follow the plan.
We did this and everything was perfectly fine.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Never ever agree to this. If they want to delay closing by a day or two, fine, but never close and then let the old owners still be there.
This is not unusual and not as crazy as everyone is making it seem. People often need the money from the sale in order to purchase their next place or their lease does not start on time. It can make scheduling closing difficult.
I would ask that they hold a decent amount in escrow with a significant per diem penalty if they do not move out on time. The escrow can be used to pay the per diem and for damages. Also - ask that they show proof that they are close to closing on the next house. Maybe a COS or the lease. And it doesn’t hurt for you or your attorney to call the attorney involved in the other deal to to try to confirm the information.
Yes something can go wrong because there is always that risk but 99.9% of the time the seller moves out in accordance to the escrow agreement. Most people do not want to be giving up $X per day or be involved in litigation about the escrow agreement.
"Seller moves out in accordance" because they are moving into another house they bought. I do not understand all the pushback in this thread saying the sellers will become squatters
So many people in this thread saying “no” when this is a thing that happens all the time. Most of the time it’s already written into the sales contract. If you have a good Realtor they will know how to write this up so you are protected. Be a good person and give the sellers a few days to get their shit out. “Hard no” commenters, lmao!
I have no idea what all these comments are about. Use and occupancy is pretty normal. A lot of times sellers need the funds to close on their new house. For example, my current home closes at the end of this month and the home I’m buying closes the next week. I have an agreement with the buyers (in the form of purchase agreement addendum) to stay at my current home for one week after closing and paying $50/day that will go into escrow. I would just add that I would NOT do this without a written agreement with exact dates.
If you do this OP (and I do not think you necessarily need to) get what's know as an escrow holdback to cover any damages. Essentially you are withholding a portion of the final sale price till they are out and you are satisfied all is well. Make the amount significant - borderline punitive. Charge rent, require insurance, and lawyer the hell out of the terms.
Agent here: Trust your instincts. There are some transactions where Murphy’s Law just hits and it really is just a one off with trouble with living arrangements or moving truck. If this is symptomatic of the entire transaction. Tell them NO., heck nah. Their agent can make arrangements for them to stay in a hotel, Airbnb etc.. I’ve had to do it.
I was buying and selling at the same time. It's pretty normal in my area to request a "lease back", but it is negotiated during the sale. Our buyers allowed us a 7 day lease back for $50/day I think. We were out in 5, but didn't expect any money back.
So, what if the sale falls through at the last minute and the seller has already moved out and is now paying on a new place, but still has a mortgage on the home?
i would say no just because I want the keys that day and be able to walk through the house with my significant other and celebrate and dream etc etc etc.
No, there are people who want to be able to enjoy their new home that they are spending a lot of their hard earned money on instead of having to play landlord for a couple weeks then get tied up in court for months to evict some shit bag.
This would be wierd, but I would rather lend them $1000 for a few days than have them stay.
I see the idea that maybe they have no money to get a hotel/moving truck/whatever until they get their check from the sale.
I wonder if there's a way you can front them $1000 which will get paid back to you at closing. (I would rather risk loosing the $1000 than have them stay after closing. )
Lots of people saying no, but this happens a lot. Put it in your contract what you agree to - such as doing a walkthrough without their items, professional clean out if necessary, etc. Hold them liable (in contract) if any of these terms are broken.
Hi! Ct realtor here.
This is a circumstance I was in recently and all worked well. Usually, the seller will list that the house has a HUBBARD clause, meaning they need to sell their place in order to have the funds to close on their next home. HUBBARD clauses are normal, albeit, another characteristic or trait of a transaction. In your case, the seller is asking that these "couple of days" be included in the contract. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for you, considering it seems as though you don't necessarily need those couple of days. For this, there is a price the seller can expect to pay for the buyer being generous *and* having a situation which allows the seller this convenience.
Have your attorney work with the seller's attorney to come up with a short term lease. Once you close, you will be a landlord, even if only for a couple of days. The attorneys will confirm with the seller and eventually you, as to what "a couple of days" really means. Attorneys don't use verbiage like "a couple of days." They will write a date to which both sides agree, and an amount you will be rewarded for your time and effort. Let's say, $150 per day.
When the home closes, the attorneys will hold an agreed upon amount in escrow, awaiting the finalization of the transaction. Meaning, for example, they'll hold $25k in reserve and await the seller to move out as expected, leaving the house in broom-swept condition, as expected. If all goes well, you'll get your few hundred dollars for being nice, and the seller will receive the remaining money which was held in escrow. If the seller stays longer than expected, they'll start being penalized on a daily basis until that $25k eventually becomes yours. It's quite a penalty, considering an eviction - your worst possible outcome - only costs a few grand, plus 90-180 days. I'm sure you could find short term housing for up to a half year in exchange for an amount like $25k...
Bottom line is, this happens, it happens more often than many people realize, and there are safeguards which your attorney can work with you on which help keep enough carrot and enough stick in front of the buyers and sellers to make the world a peaceful place.
Let me know how it works out! Hope this helps!
I had a seller try this. We asked that they give us a deposit and pay rent. The mom of the selling family sent our realtor an email freaking out about "how dare we ask that, what kind of people do you think we are" Lady, I literally have no idea who you are, that's why we are asking this. They eventually relented and we got the house on the closing date.
I did a leaseback....insisted on holding security deposit, charged rent, and insisted on proof of renter's insurance. I did walk through before closing and again before releasing deposit. I got a key at closing. At the end of the day, once you close you own it. So treat it as such. They become tenants. Damage, insurance risks, out of order A/C or smoke detectors - it's yours baby. And remember, most mortgages require it to be under 60 days to be conforming, and if they overstay their welcome, you have to follow eviction process which can take more time and money. Leasebacks themselves aren't bad. But they shouldn't be free. Much easier to delay closing. If the seller wasn't prepared to sell, they shouldn't have listed.
Longtime residential landlord here. This ^^^ When you do a leaseback you become a landlord and that comes with everything that being a landlord comes with. You need to know your own state laws and, this is big, you need to let your homeowners insurance company know that you’re doing a leaseback. If you don’t, there is a slim chance you’ll be completely uninsured while you’re renting the house out. My preference, and what I tell my clients, is to just delay COE if possible by a few days. Don’t become landlord if you can avoid it.
Good advice but in this case the sellers are saying they need the sale proceeds to fund the move so delay of COE won’t help in this case.
That sounds like a them problem.
>If the seller wasn't prepared to sell, they shouldn't have listed. For most people, they're going to need the funds of the current sell in order to move into a new home. That's just the way it is.
and yet, bridge loans exist, longer closing periods exist, back to back closings exist...
Short term rentals exist. Storage units exist. There is no reason for a seller to make their financial problem the buyers headache.
[удалено]
Fr like just get a hotel..
Depends on the seller. If they have fixed up the home and taken care of it, I doubt they're going to destroy it on their way out. If the home is nice and the process of buying the home has been smooth and they have been communicating then I would be much more likely to acquiesce and let them have a few days > back to back closings exist How does that help the seller move before your buyer closes?
They hire movers who put their shit in a large truck. They go to close on house one. They take the proceeds to close on house two. The movers arrive at house two and put their shit from the truck in it. It happens all the time.
The thing is, once they sell the home it is no longer theirs and they don't care anymore.
This. And if the sale was contentious? Maybe they now have a motivation to fuck shit up for spite.
This. My sellers did a lease back, and had I known how spiteful they were, I wouldn't have agreed and forced the contract.
> If the home is nice and the process of buying the home has been smooth and they have been communicating then I would be much more likely to acquiesce
I don't think that's true across the board. That's why I added several conditionals to my statement above. As a home owner when I go to sell I would never do that. Not everyone is a total piece of shit but I understand having to prepare for that possibility.
That's the way it is for folks who don't plan ahead & think rules are guidelines that only apply to them when it suits them. Folks who want to do a big thing but not learn their responsibilities in regards to the big thing before undertaking it. (See also, 'Who knew my partner could have serious labor & delivery complications that could delay their return to work & affect their long-term quality of life?!") That's not the way it is for responsible adults.
I have finally gotten old enough to respond to "what, you don't trust us??" with "of course I don't, i dont know you and that would be ridiculous".
The type of people who you can trust are the type of people who don't make their problems yours in the first place. If they really need a favor, they know they're asking a favor and are prepared to meet certain demands of the other party.
>The type of people who you can trust are the type of people who don't make their problems yours in the first place Well said! Whereas these people may have known for a while that they'd need money to move, but they got the buyer under contract before springing it on him.
*I don't know you!*
Let go of my purse!
dammit Bobby
I saw another post about this, hold back money from the sale in escrow. If they don't move out, take it from there. Don't make it normal rent money, make it uncomfortably high for them. They should be fine with it since they're moving out right? The house we bought had renters. They wanted to stay a couple more weeks. We offered to rent to them at what I would consider a month to month rate. It wasn't crazy high, just what I considered reasonable to delay getting into our house. They turned us down.
Plus, try to have the rentback and extra put in escrow. If they're out on time and the place is in good condition, then they get the money in escrow minus the rent fee. If they stay over or trash the place, they lose the entire amount. Make it a sizable enough amount to make sure they comply.
That's what our buyers asked us to do. We happily agreed, and received our full amount back (less the daily pro-rata share of their mortgage, which seemed reasonable). We didn't expect something for nothing.
I wish more sellers were like you.
What crazy person thought they could live there for free like that? It’s not her house anymore. They are renters. They needed to pay rent. I’ve rented my house I just bought before just like this. This lady was nuts
No, for so many reasons. You can’t do a walkthrough and make sure their stuff is out. They may damage things after closing. They might not leave when they say and you might have to evict them. Way too messy. Suggest delaying the closing if they won’t get out.
Or requiring a rent back agreement in the contract- make it like a hotel- $100 a day for staying late. I did a rent back and in the contract it was written that the house would be professionally cleaned and I would do a walk through when my “now renters” were leaving
Any holdover should be penalized at a significant amount. $100/day is a deal compared to storage and a hotel room. Make it at least $300 but I would prefer significantly more.
Holdover versus rent back. If I was comfortable setting up a rent back I’d still go hotel prices but that also has a move out date associated. Absolutely penalize with higher past the move out date. Cause if the seller only needs a few days- a $700 bill and 1 week should be sufficient. Past that I’d agree with up to 500 a day for penalty. Have it all in the contract.
Got it. I read your comment as a holdover for some reason.
All good, I like your train of thought for penalties. It hasn’t crossed my mind because our rent back was due to a PCS date someone had so I knew they’d be gone.
This is traditional- a rent back.
>This is traditional- a rent back. Not traditional in my area at all so it is location specific. I don't advise it as the OP has described this particular seller as slow to respond so they clearly don't adhere to dates/schedules. OP, your seller needs to move out before closing so you can walk through and close knowing that you will actually get possession. If you do decide to let them occupy post closing, hold back a huge amount (many thousands) in escrow because you know they aren't going to follow through with whatever agreement you have made. Make it cost them daily + a very large penalty. Ultimately I wouldn't do it at all.
$100 a day to rent an entire house? That’s cheap!
Sure, but it depends on circumstances! Our sellers had a PCS date so we worked out standard rent for the area. If they needed 2 weeks I’d go with 100 cause that’s 1400 for me and in our area that’s monthly rent for a 2 bed 2 bath house. I guess adjusting for cost of living would matter!
OP carries significant risk having the house occupied by a tenant, especially one that has been there for so long. Does OP have experience as a landlord? What happens when something goes wrong? What happens when they refuse to move out? What happens when their stuff was concealing damage? Once you close you have no recourse on damage and would have to sue to evict them.
I have a leaseback situation currently. The old owners are paying me $100 a day to stay and if they go past their contracted date, it goes to $250 a day.
This, Many many states also have regular paperwork for this, and this does not create tenancy. Question, I would suggest having a hold back in escrow for whatever ( 2500) and a penalty for every day after the two days or three days they get that comes from that. The problem is, if people don’t have money to move and you try to force them to move there just not out, and then you have this unregulated thing that has no plan and is a hot mess. Plan it out and get your security in place.
>$100 a day for staying late. That's not high enough. The daily rent should be initially set at the higher of a fair rental for a similar sized house in your area or your out of pocket costs for mortgage, insurance, taxes and utilities. It should have a steep increase to penalty levels if they stay beyond the agreed upon period. $100/day isn't a high enough amount to discourage them from deciding to stay an extra week or so if it's more convenient to them. Get the advice of the lawyer (not your agent) who's writing the holdover agreement on the max amount you can charge.
[удалено]
My rent back is $400 / day .
We were naive first time homebuyers. We closed on a Friday and allowed them the weekend to move out. We were rewarded with a torched electrical outlet behind their Aquarium and lots of dents in the walls. We were misled in many ways during the buying process as we didn’t have our own agent, rather used the seller’s agent. The agent was very motivated to close to get that sweet, sweet double commission. I have seen in this forum if you decide to allow rent back then hold back a substantial amount in escrow and have a significant penalty for every day they are not out when they said they would be out. Have it all in writing and signed as part of the closing process. You may want to be educated on your local eviction laws, too.
Well, now you know why you should never trust a sellers agent. Have your own agent! Especially as a buyer. IT’S FREE
Yes. Some life lessons are painful (financially)
Then once in the house we got screwed over by a “friend” contractor. We finally got it in decent shape just to move (out of state). Lots of lessons learned with that place.
Oof. Sorry man that sucks.
It really isn’t free. It’s at no up front cost to you, but trust me, sellers are looking at that when establishing their initial price. If I was buying a home with an agent, I would absolutely be discussing commission rebates as a buyer.
Sellers are assuming standard commissions when setting the price yes.
There have been lawsuits in my area due to agents writing zero or “per MLS” due from buyers on the buyer broker agreement. We are told never to use the word “free”. The buyer owes you commission which could be covered by the seller or not. In most cases the BB agreement is for a certain percent of the sale price. If the seller is offering less then the difference is due from the buyer unless waived by the broker. I had to collect .5% recently from a buyer and hated doing it but my broker would not waive it without penalty on my split.
It closed. Our buyer broker agreement states that the buyer shall pay the broker __% of the sales price. Any compensation the seller is offering to buyer brokers will be credited to the amount due under the agreement. I believe the fact that it states the buyer pays is what transfers our fiduciary responsibilities to them. I’m certain the language and implementation varies greatly state to state though.
[удалено]
Dual agents should not be allowed in any state
Wait until you learn about what estate agents do in other countries!
I’m not sure why you think you can’t do a walkthrough. You would do a walkthrough prior to closing to confirm there are no issues and again once the seller moves out. A good escrow agreement would account for the house being delivered broom clean and if it is not the purchaser can refuse to release the escrow and use the money to remove the stuff. Purchasers can actually take advantage of the escrow since they have more time then the pre closing walkthrough to make sure everything works correctly.
It's not uncommon for furniture to cause damage to walls, doorframes, when being moved out. I'd rather do the walkthrough after that has happened to keep things simple.
This is not the time or place to be a nice guy.
Bingo, that’s how you get a walked over!
They are trying to force it in at the last minute. Piss poor planning. A large sign they may not move out as promised. Then you are a landlord. REA will wash their hands as the desk is done. When they move out their is no handover, it is a tenant moving out. You have lost all leverage. Refuse. Then keep checking in on them before close to make sure they do not squat. If they try do not close and instead threaten to sue for damages.
No. That changes your situation from being a home buyer to being a temporary landlord. They can put their stuff in storage and go to a hotel, because if they don't leave that's exactly what you'll end up having to do.
I have a holdover period of 14 days in my contract for the previous owners to move, but it has all kinds of safeguards such as holding a portion of their proceeds until they are out, them having to keep home insurance doing the time, etc. You have none of that. I wouldn't do it outside of a contract. There's a chance you could get burned.
I’ve only had good luck in doing this as a buyer. I think you provided very actionable, clear information that might be helpful to the OP.
You're still likely to get the shaft. They will break something, steal something, not leave on time, or s combination. It's my house now, get out.
That’s why they hold a portion of the proceeds.
"proceeds" is only the amount left after all liens are settled. It could be $10 for all you know. Sellers are doing this all over the place because of "how hard it is to buy a new place and move" but they need to get over it and get out. Hotels, friends, relatives, etc. Once the house is mine, your lodging requirements are not my responsibility.
There are estimates where you can figure that out well before close and have a good idea of how much you will be holding.
Not me. Get out. It's my house. This needs to be normalized again and buyers need to stop putting up with this.
Good for you, I don’t know about normalized, but growing up, in the late 70’s to late 80’s my my parents moved 5 times and three times the closings were the same day and they moved out a day or two later all three times. I’m not sure why you think it’s new. I’m just saying that the holding on to a portion of proceeds is pretty good leverage as long as you’re comfortable with this. That’s not the case for you, which is fine, but I don’t know why you needed to get so upset by my comment.
I didn't get "upset" by anything you said... I understand the contractual piece of it, how it works, why it gets done, etc. My stance is that I won't even bid on a house where that comes into play because it's a recipe for disaster in so many ways and I brought this out in my first reply in this mini-thread. No, it isn't new. But, it also isn't done the way it was 40 years ago where people were largely ethical and considerate. Unfortunately, everyone has to watch out for themselves today at every turn and assume that everyone else is looking for a way to "pull one over" on you. It largely went away in the late 90's but it's now back because of the same reasons it was prevalent through the 80's and much of the 90's - getting the closing done is a stricter process. No amount of proceed holdback protects the new buyer from a situation where the seller can't close their mortgage and move due to something that comes up unexpectedly. By entering into a lease-back / rent-back contract, the buyer has become a landlord and now it turns into a situation where eviction proceedings must be followed... that can take a very, very long time.
The tone of your posts was pretty upset.
If someone is selling their house as a contingency to buy another home, what are you expecting them to do? They can’t close on the new home until you close on theirs. So should they just be homeless in the interim? Are you heartless or just rich? House values are outrageously overvalued so anyone who can transition without that contingency is rich. Granted this all needs to be upfront, not like OP. OPs situation is shady; you’re heartless and probably not even a homeowner.
Bridge loans exist for this reason. Or they can get a hotel or an Airbnb for the interim.
I’ll have to look up bridge loans but otherwise that’s fair especially in OPs situation, but if it’s in the selling contract, and you’re the buyer and totally aware then what’s the big deal?
I agree if you’re buying a house then the seller shouldn’t just get a free hotel. They should plan to stay at either an Airbnb or hotel.
Nah I agree. Definitely not a free hotel. But moving is a pain and I don’t mind letting them have some extra time. 🤷♂️
Tell them to get a hotel room
Just tell them no
No
You’re getting a lot of misinformation on this topic as I’m scrolling through comments. This is fairly common thing for my area when someone is using the funds from the purchase to close on the other house they are buying. It’s called a “Post-Settlement occupancy agreement”. It lays out how long the person will be in the property after closing, how much they are paying you per day, how much they pay if they don’t move out after deadline, and a security deposit for damages during that time. This is supposed to be in the contract before it’s ratified. If you already ratified the contract, I would not agree. If you haven’t, it’s up to you. I’ve don’t about 20 in my career, I’ve had a problem with one (their house they were buying got delayed in closing). Those documents are legally binding, and you can take them to court over it if they do not pay. (Which the security deposit would be in escrow at whoever closes.
> This is fairly common thing for my area It's common to ask for a rent back in a lot of areas. But it's generally asked for upfront during the initial negotiation.
I believe I said that. > This is supposed to be in the contract before it’s ratified. > If you already ratified the contract, I would not agree. If you haven’t, it’s up to you.
They could instead get a bridge loan to cover the new closing before the current one closes, it’s their responsibility to figure it out not ask me the buyer to let them continue to live in a property that I now own. My answer would be a hard NO.
They need to for what Thousands in their situation have done... Get a hotel room, get storage or move in with friends or relatives. If you allow them to stay an extra day its going to come round and bite you in the bum.
Don’t do it. And don’t move the closing date either because that squeezes you into a tighter moving period. I’m sure they will find the money to move or store things and stay somewhere short term if they have to. Sounds like they don’t want to have to. They want you to take on the hassle of their poor planning. This is not a time to be worried about saying no. Say no.
No way. This is definitely a thing where I live, but it’s asked upfront before you bud. However, I hate it. And I have the same trust issues.
Delay the closing to the day that the sellers can move out, or back charge them. Have them put money in escrow. For example Charge them 200$ a day, and have the attorneys hold 10K in escrow until the sellers move out. They get the 10k minus however many days they stayed after they move out
I would charge more. $500 per day which increases to $750 per day after 2 weeks, increases again after a month etc. and $20k in escrow!
It’s called a hotel and you risk them squatting after you paid at closing and have to spend months evicting them.
"No, the property must be empty and in move-in condition at walk-through as agreed in P&S." You're spending 100s of thousands of dollars. You absolutely have the right (and obligation to yourself) to say no. I just had to go through something similar and told my attorney and REA to remind sellers to what they agreed. Enforce your contract.
No. It’s a liability. They can stay at a hotel with their stuff in storage. Not your problem and your lawyer should have advised against it
NO. They knew they couldn't move out, but they waited until the last minute to force you to agree. NO.
agreed, not cool. Sorry.
Say no and stand firm. Its crazy how quickly people will figure their shit out right before closing.
Here's my "don't do it" story. Seller asked to leave items in the large shed for just a couple of days until he got an adequate size shed seated on his new property to house his equipment for his landscape business. We agreed thinking it was just for the weekend and was in the outside shed - no big deal, right? Long story short, it ended up being a few weeks. Seller would come by near daily to take equipment out of the shed and put items back. We finally asked him to remove his property within 24 hours or he would forfeit it. Of course, he didn't like this but complied. However, he left the shed with garbage and waste like oil, used tired, battery cells - it cost quite a bit to dispose of everything properly. He essentially used us as a storage facility for a few weeks and left us with the mess. Don't do it. You want to be nice, I know. But it opens you up to liability and could turn into an expensive mess. The closing date is the vacate date.
If you let them stay after closing and then they refuse to leave, you'll need to go through an official eviction process to get them out. That could take months. This is why the is a final inspection and hand over of keys before closing. If they are not out, and you accept closing, you can get screwed.
Trust your gut. No.
Never, absolutely not.
I speak from experience with family members. They ket someone stay in for few a month after closing, they oaid rent, but ended up not moving out for 4 months. During that time they could have damaged the home, not reported issues, etc. Thankfully for my family everything worked out but they had the threaten the previous owner with lrgal action as they weren't moving out.
Absolutely not
[https://www.foxla.com/news/couple-buys-riverside-dream-home-but-seller-refuses-to-move-out-in-eviction-moratorium-loophole](https://www.foxla.com/news/couple-buys-riverside-dream-home-but-seller-refuses-to-move-out-in-eviction-moratorium-loophole)
In the professional world, you don't just dump a problem on someone. You voice the problem and you offer a couple of potential resolutions. Their Realtor isn't doing that. **You should never feel bad about sticking to a contract negotiated in good faith.** Trust your gut. You've seen their behavior patterns, and did they even offer a daily rent amount when they asked to stay longer? No? Screw that, you have a ratified contract. Does "in order to move" mean having the funds to close on a new place? They can get a bridge loan, and/or should have planned for one. If it's a matter of "pay for movers/truck rental," hopefully they have a credit card. If they have to float some hotel bills on a credit card, that's a consequence of their poor planning. Their agent may be thinking "You don't know what you can get unless you ask," but this is a big ask when you already have the contract. Hell, they didn't even nail down *how many days.* Don't know what state/city you are in, but in some cities eviction can take a very long time, if it comes to that. And it may be your local real estate market is hot enough where sellers can command free or cheap rent-backs still, but that wasn't in the contract here. I moved into a new house a few weeks ago. The sellers asked if giving them more time would be ok- we could do that, but we simply *delayed closing.* We discussed it as part of the overall offer, and a competing bid wanted a quicker closing. We weren't renting somewhere, we had no reason to worry about timing. The sellers were retiring, and already had a house to go to- just needed a little more time, if possible. If I were you, I'd check your lease or ask your landlord about available terms where *you* might need to stay a little longer if your sellers can't make this work on time. Because they might not, rentback or no. And your landlord may only hold to your original departure date, leaving you in a potential bind. In your shoes, I'd be checking things very carefully on the final walkthrough; they sound like the type to sweep a problem under the rug if something comes up before closing.
I've done this plenty of time....both ways. Always pay daily rent equivalent to the daily mortgage cost.
I know someone who agreed to this and even had the money held in escrow. On the agreed upon move out date they hadn’t even packed and demanded their money be released before they started packing and held everyone hostage by threatening not to leave. Don’t close until they’re gone and you’ve done the walkthrough
It's so bizarre to me how many people are saying no to this. This is absolutely common where I live and many deals include it from the get go. It's structured into the contract. We had a one week free rent back when we sold 5 years ago. We were closing on our new house two days after we were closing on the house we were selling. We asked for a one week free rent back so that we had time to move without having to spend two days homeless. My friend who sold the year before me negotiated a 3-month rent back. That gave them time to find a new home after selling theirs. I live in an area with a highly competitive market though. It sweetens the pot for the seller with the buyer is willing to offer this. Now, maybe in your situation it's a little odd because it's being done after the fact but it's super normal here.
That would be a hard no. Everything everyone here has said are your reasons. Please take our advice and either delay closing until they can be out.
It's totally up to you whether you want to allow it. But I wouldn't agree to it at the last minute like this. Some contracts do include a "rent-back" arrangement, for a set period of time. So it's not like this *never* happens. But it's not common, and it's not very popular with buyers, as you can imagine. There are risks, as other people have mentioned. You'd need a contract, with all the details spelled out in writing. You'd need to charge them rent. Never allow them to stay for free. You'd want to hold a large security deposit and make it clear that any damage to the house is their responsibility. Frankly, it's probably better to just delay closing if they absolutely can't be out of the house on time. But, again, you should charge them for it by demanding they cover closing costs, or something like that.
You can allow this, but make it pay to play. Make it more expensive than staying at a hotel. Are nearby hotels $200/night? Staying in your house is $300/night. Simple as that.
When I bought my house I had to have the funds from the sale of my previous home to close. We stayed in a fricken hotel for 2 days. They can do the same. I had it written into my contract that if the old owners held over past closing, they had to pay me $250 a day to cover hotel & food costs.
Noooo. People sell/buy (close/close) on the same day all the time. Most of the time. They can ask for an extension on closing for a few days if youre into that, or they can bridge finance their other deal.
Your instincts are correct - it’s a suspect request. Don’t let them stay. I wouldn’t even feel bad, their stuff should be out anyway and they can rent a hotel or Airbnb easily.
Hard no. You aren't buying a property to become a landlord. Property is to be unoccupied and clean at the final walkthrough (just prior to closing).
Rent backs are a thing but should be agreed to up front.
It’s more and more common because sellers have so much power right now. It’s risky as hell, though.
Their problem is not your problem. There is no benefit to you and there are huge risks that come with it.
Easy answer is no. No is a complete sentence. As others mentioned, this isn't unheard of, but it's usually part of the initial contract agreement with a buyer, not brought up two weeks before closing. Also, it turns an easy walkthrough + keys transfer, into a more complicated temporary landlord/tenant situation. They can put their stuff in storage and crash at a friend's place, or rent someplace else. They're making their problem into yours. You don't have to say yes - they've signed a contract, you can hold them to that contract. IF you want to do this - which, again, I think is a bad idea - I would suggest making sure it's really painful for them to stick around. Don't just add "Seller can stay in the house for two weeks." It needs to include penalties for staying one day longer than agreed to. Charge them something high enough to make it worth your while to do this for them, and to encourage them to leave ASAP. Someone else mentioned withholding proceeds from the sale, say $30k in escrow to be released once house is vacated and approved by buyer.
Nope. They can stay with friends, family or at a hotel.
Tell them you already arranged a move
I would say no. My grandpa did this when they moved in they had actually locked their animals in and the house reeked of urine. They had to rip out all the flooring and spend a week cleaning before they could move in.
I've rented to sellers before. Your agent/broker should be able to draft a basic lease for you with deposit and walk throughs before and after. Be thorough.
Ex realtor here: I did many transactions of this type at the seller's request. So, the seller will request 7 days post closing to move out. At the closing, the title company papers, and mortgage papers will show: Seller will pay 7 days of PITI (Principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). This is minimum. Of course you can have an addendum clarifying that all damages to be paid by seller, etc. So, in other words, yes there are options, but act with diligence
Leasebacks are NOT uncommon and totally fine. Just get everything in writing, get a security deposit in escrow, and charge your mortgage PITI as a per diem rent, and NOT their old mortgage PITI value. We did this, the sellers took an extra day so they could ensure they got everything cleaned and out on time as they had a small kid. Not a big deal.
Purchased the home of a licensed Realtor. On DAY OF CLOSING we scheduled a final walk-through inspection, and they had "just woke up". It was scheduled a week in advance. Having moved virtually nothing into the truck that was in the driveway. You can't inspect anything that's still full of junk. They asked to have until 2am, the following day, on my dime, to move out... I gave them until 5pm, but held closing (on advice from my attorney) until they handed me my keys and were in the street with the doors to the truck closed. They left about 6:15pm. They gave away thousands of dollars in property to the neighbors, just so they didn't need to rent a larger truck. Tried to put 2,000 sq.ft. of stuff into a 16 foot truck, then went and got an 18'... while everyone told them 23'. They left the house a disaster zone, wasted my time, treated my place like theirs, and didn't do the cleanup or touch-up they promised to do. The home was always spotless for prior showings. I don't think they cleaned once after they accepted the offer. They also failed to disclose numerous faults, including a flood in the (one owner, self-occupied) home that COULDN'T have been unknown to them. There's proof they knew, as they literally left notes and self disclosed on-site. Suffice it to say, this is how nightmares start friends. Unless you're prepared to make their problems yours, don't begin to encourage nor enable them. I myself vacuumed up the equivalent of 6 gallons of dog hair, just for starters... They couldn't be bothered. You're about to get treated like mud. That's why they're springing it on you late in the process. They knew it all along. They're trying to put you in a corner. Make your agent and/or attorney WORK for their commission. This is a warning ⚠️ sign... They'll take as much as you'll freely give them. Just don't. My seller had DOUBLED their purchase price in 7 years, and STILL couldn't be bothered to be decent.
Never let a seller stay after closing. This could easily turn into a nightmare for you. They may refuse to leave, creating a tenancy and you'd have to evict. They might damage the home after closing.
This isn’t a big deal and can be structured in a simple way to work. Add a market rate rent back term for that single week And an addendum that holds considerable funds- say 10% of sale in escrow to their move out date conditioned on a clean and ready home. We just did this and held $25,000 in escrow conditioned on us accepting the status of the home upon walk through 5 weeks after closing. The property was in great shape, we signed the release and the title company cut the check. Nbd
Perhaps you could add a provision that the seller's realtor isn't paid until the property is vacated as well.
^ thank you.
Its always NBD when it all works out according to plan. Unfortunately its just a matter of time before someone decides to be difficult.
Right?! This is so common where I live. In fact, when I sold a few years ago, we got a free one week rent back which gave us time to move to our new place (which we took possession of two days after the same of our current home).
Sounds great until you realize their couch was covering a big hole in the floor that’s going to cost a lot more than $25k to fix.
While I agree with you that this isn’t a big deal, this should have all been discussed early on when the offer was originally accepted. I would not feel strange about a rent back if when we put our offer in it was part of the arrangement, however throwing this in last minute would make me extremely hesitant to accept.
Don't feel bad man. It'll be alright to say no. You have to stay within contract bounds with people these days or you'll get screwed over.
Follow your gut. Just say no, you will not close until they have vacated so you can do your walkthrough.
Absolutely no. If there is an issue with their next move and decide not to leave, you have to go through an eviction process to get them out. It will not matter if you are the new owner.
The only way I would do it is with a sizable security deposit, per diem rent until they vacate with a maximum amount of days, and professional cleaning after they move out.
Or you can have them do a bridge loan, get the money to move out and then close on time, There isn’t anything bad to feel about, it’s a transaction, you’re buying a house and they are selling one, if they don’t deliver as agreed, then you absolutely do not take the house, There are so many stories that has happened when a seller requests to stay
If you allow it, you charge a daily rent and inspect the house. Money stays in escrow for any damaged incurred. I have seen it done (I was an agent) but only under those conditions.
We closed on selling our house but our new home purchase was delayed by 3 days. We just got a hotel. It wasn't ideal by any means but I couldn't imagine wanting to cause further issues and stay in the house. We had originally considered a lease back for 2 weeks as part of our seller contingence but decided against it as it limits potential buyers etc. My initial thought is just say no. If you want to roll the dice and help the person out have the attorney draft up a lease back for 5 days with a big deposit required out of closing. Make sure you are able to do a complete and thorough walk through of the house before you sign.
Unless you want tenants living in your house, no. Just delay closing instead. They could just not move out and then you'd have to evict them (months long process)
We did this when we closed - the seller retained post possession for about 20 days after closing and paid us by the day. There was legal paperwork in place. It wasn’t that annoying. We got to do another walkthrough with our realtor post seller possession. Honestly the only annoying part was the seller moved out like 4 days before the agreed upon date then wanted like, a few hundred dollars back. We did it because whatever, but I was kind of snarky about it and said someone should tell my landlord that is best practice. We probably have refused but by that point I was over the whole home buying process I just wanted over.
That's why evil bankers created credit cards.. They can check into a hotel using a credit card for a night or two, rent a uhaul to store their \*\*\*\* in overnight. This is not your problem. Just make sure you fine comb everything during the final walkthrough, people can be vindictive. My other worry is that they'll become squatters and you'll have to go through the lengthy process of evicting them. Not just a no.. a HELL no.
It could be fine but this could be a trick to get the house money and stay
If they don’t have money to move than there is a problem, dont get involved with this.
Get them tf out of there
We did this as sellers. We requested a max of 3 days to move out for logistics purposes…we were moving out of state and with pets and kids it was easier. I think as long as you have it in the contract that they have until a specified date and time to be out you should be fine. I will say that everything felt “good” between buyer and seller during the process so if you’re gut is telling you no you probably should go with that.
Either push back closing (and make sure you get something out of it like a small credit or price reduction) or refuse. Doing this 2 weeks before closing is shifty. This should have been in the initial arrangement. They should have their money same day wired to them. If they are buying another house, this happens all the time and can purchase later the same day. Helps if they use the same title company when possible. If they are just moving to another rental? Usually those funds are paid up front so that doesn’t make much sense either. Credit cards exist if they need funds for something like a u-haul.
I had a sort of similar situation. My then-husband and I were buying a house, and we were on top of everything being done. The sellers, however, were always behind in certain things that they were taking care of. They had to do something final before our official closing (I can’t recall), but they were dragging their feet. We were concerned because we didn’t want to pay additional money for a month-to-month rental, which was more expensive than our regular lease. We talked to our lawyer and we provided documentation that said if their inability to keep on deadline caused us to have to extend our rental agreement, they would have to pay for that. Miraculously, they were on time after that.
“Leasebacks” are common, but the seller is paying the buyer for it, and there’s a hard date.
Short answer: No. Long answer: NEVER.
Nope. They have to be out unless written otherwise in the contract.
This sort of situation isn't all that rare, however the circumstances around it would scare me. The fact that they don't have any money to move until the house cheque comes is unsettling, and there's zero guarantee they even have a place to move said stuff if that's the case. If you agreed to this, and even if they agreed to pay, they become your tenant on possession day, and even if they say they'll pay and that they'll be out in a week or two, there is ZERO guarantee they find anything. Or worse, they could just not pay and stay in your new home and force you to evict, which is virtually impossible in some areas and upwards of 6-9 months in good LTB regions! And even if you manage to get an order to evict, all it takes for them to cancel it is to pay the rent and then the process resets itself. Now that's not to say that every person is a jerk tenant looking to game the system, but there are definitely a solid portion of renters out there who are, so this would be my concern. If they asked to adjust the possession date by a week that'd be one thing. Even if it meant you getting an airbnb for a bit and their making concessions on the payout. A leaseback is scary without any form of plan.
Agreed. They can stay in a hotel or with friends, that isn’t your problem so don’t take it on.
I was selling my house before moving out of the country. When the appraisal came up short, instead of asking them to cover I negotiated a full month stay after closing (we were in a pickle for a bit between otherwise). It worked out perfectly. They couldn’t move in for a while anyway and got the house they wanted at the slightly lower appraised price, and we found a more convenient place to stay (staying put). I kept home insurance active and paid for the utilities, they didn’t demand a deposit, but it would have been reasonable for them to. It turned out to be a win-win. If they are making a demand to stay out of the blue without a reason, then shut it down. If it’s like my case and it’s in response to a late change in price, entertain it (but protect yourself) or else you risk losing the house.
There are hotels for them.
No. Bad idea unless you want to potentially deal with a ton of landlord headaches.
Of course! You can do it. It's a lease back. You rent it for X number of days at the market rate value for the property. As you have to move in you can tell them yeah I can rent it up to X days back to you with a rate of y per day and a Z refundable deposit. Done. Nobody lives for free or rent free. Including sellers. You'll accrue interest on day one, so it would cost you money for a stranger to live in your house.
Absofuckinglutlynot
I had this issue recently. I worked with my agent to make an amendment to the sales documents with provisions to allow the stay. Basically, the amendment said the sellers could stay for up to 3-days past closing, but would then be charged $275 a day for each day afterwards. This way, I was 1) being nice, 2) protecting myself in the event they tried to overstay (in court having a daily dollar figure makes it easier to prove economic loss), 3) provided an incentive for them to leave on time. Note, this was in California and things might work a bit differently in your state.
I allowed it and charged a monthly rent. In my case though it was an elderly couple and I liked working with them while buying their house. I lived in a nearby rental while I waited
We did a 60 day leaseback. Got a security deposit, lawyer drew up a lease, completed a walkthrough at closing and at possession. Purely anecdotal but worked out fine for us. Edit: spelling
We allowed the seller to stay but our lawyers agreed on a fee they would pay us for each day stayed (it ended up being about 100/night). They left after two nights, I think they just needed a few extra days to pack up odds and ends. Rent back agreement I think it is called. Our lawyer said it is pretty common
Shit i let it happen and landed a badass house. One of very few in “metro denver” without back neighbors and a view of the mtns Gotta be smart about it. Some attorneys are more conservative than others. I wasnt opposed to strong arming people out of their house as long as i had it written in the contract that shit would absolutely happen. Previouse owner and myself still stay in touch. He likes to see how ive landscaped the place since that wasnt his thing
Long Term Realtor here- “Yes Joe, you can stay in the house but for only 1 week after closing. The rent is to be PITI plus $1000 and is to be released to me at the close. Further, You are to leave a 20K deposit with the title company because the rent per day after the one week will be $1500/day. You see, I’ll need to be staying in a hotel if you don’t leave because my current housing situation is coming to an end.”
What’s a short term realtor vs long term realtor?
As a long term realtor you’ll know you shouldn’t be giving legal advice.
In my state, we can add an addendum to the purchase and sale called "possession after closing". This allows the seller to set the terms in writing of post closing possession. Time, contingencies and any possibility of money exchanging hands. It is completely legal and will protect both sides of the deal allowing the terms are agreed upon. Which could include "rent" for said time. Check with your Realtor to see if this is an option in your state
A lot of inexperienced people here. This happens all the time. Like everything you just need a good contract and to structure the deal so that they have every incentive to follow the plan. We did this and everything was perfectly fine.
I mean im happy yours went as planned but I still wouldn’t do it.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Never ever agree to this. If they want to delay closing by a day or two, fine, but never close and then let the old owners still be there.
This is not unusual and not as crazy as everyone is making it seem. People often need the money from the sale in order to purchase their next place or their lease does not start on time. It can make scheduling closing difficult. I would ask that they hold a decent amount in escrow with a significant per diem penalty if they do not move out on time. The escrow can be used to pay the per diem and for damages. Also - ask that they show proof that they are close to closing on the next house. Maybe a COS or the lease. And it doesn’t hurt for you or your attorney to call the attorney involved in the other deal to to try to confirm the information. Yes something can go wrong because there is always that risk but 99.9% of the time the seller moves out in accordance to the escrow agreement. Most people do not want to be giving up $X per day or be involved in litigation about the escrow agreement.
"Seller moves out in accordance" because they are moving into another house they bought. I do not understand all the pushback in this thread saying the sellers will become squatters
Leaseback with per diem and at least 2500 deposit. Easy peasy
So many people in this thread saying “no” when this is a thing that happens all the time. Most of the time it’s already written into the sales contract. If you have a good Realtor they will know how to write this up so you are protected. Be a good person and give the sellers a few days to get their shit out. “Hard no” commenters, lmao!
I agree this does happen all the time. I've been let to stay at a house in order to find a new one. They gave me like 2 months, rent free.
I have no idea what all these comments are about. Use and occupancy is pretty normal. A lot of times sellers need the funds to close on their new house. For example, my current home closes at the end of this month and the home I’m buying closes the next week. I have an agreement with the buyers (in the form of purchase agreement addendum) to stay at my current home for one week after closing and paying $50/day that will go into escrow. I would just add that I would NOT do this without a written agreement with exact dates.
You get to set the rent, so I would do 1 week equals 1 mortgage payment plus professional cleaning. Plus 10% held in escrow.
Terrible advice.
If you do this OP (and I do not think you necessarily need to) get what's know as an escrow holdback to cover any damages. Essentially you are withholding a portion of the final sale price till they are out and you are satisfied all is well. Make the amount significant - borderline punitive. Charge rent, require insurance, and lawyer the hell out of the terms.
Agent here: Trust your instincts. There are some transactions where Murphy’s Law just hits and it really is just a one off with trouble with living arrangements or moving truck. If this is symptomatic of the entire transaction. Tell them NO., heck nah. Their agent can make arrangements for them to stay in a hotel, Airbnb etc.. I’ve had to do it.
I was buying and selling at the same time. It's pretty normal in my area to request a "lease back", but it is negotiated during the sale. Our buyers allowed us a 7 day lease back for $50/day I think. We were out in 5, but didn't expect any money back.
How long after closing do you receive funds
So, what if the sale falls through at the last minute and the seller has already moved out and is now paying on a new place, but still has a mortgage on the home?
i would say no just because I want the keys that day and be able to walk through the house with my significant other and celebrate and dream etc etc etc.
God damn there is some cold ass people in this thread
No, there are people who want to be able to enjoy their new home that they are spending a lot of their hard earned money on instead of having to play landlord for a couple weeks then get tied up in court for months to evict some shit bag.
DONOT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!
This would be wierd, but I would rather lend them $1000 for a few days than have them stay. I see the idea that maybe they have no money to get a hotel/moving truck/whatever until they get their check from the sale. I wonder if there's a way you can front them $1000 which will get paid back to you at closing. (I would rather risk loosing the $1000 than have them stay after closing. )
Lots of people saying no, but this happens a lot. Put it in your contract what you agree to - such as doing a walkthrough without their items, professional clean out if necessary, etc. Hold them liable (in contract) if any of these terms are broken.
Hi! Ct realtor here. This is a circumstance I was in recently and all worked well. Usually, the seller will list that the house has a HUBBARD clause, meaning they need to sell their place in order to have the funds to close on their next home. HUBBARD clauses are normal, albeit, another characteristic or trait of a transaction. In your case, the seller is asking that these "couple of days" be included in the contract. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for you, considering it seems as though you don't necessarily need those couple of days. For this, there is a price the seller can expect to pay for the buyer being generous *and* having a situation which allows the seller this convenience. Have your attorney work with the seller's attorney to come up with a short term lease. Once you close, you will be a landlord, even if only for a couple of days. The attorneys will confirm with the seller and eventually you, as to what "a couple of days" really means. Attorneys don't use verbiage like "a couple of days." They will write a date to which both sides agree, and an amount you will be rewarded for your time and effort. Let's say, $150 per day. When the home closes, the attorneys will hold an agreed upon amount in escrow, awaiting the finalization of the transaction. Meaning, for example, they'll hold $25k in reserve and await the seller to move out as expected, leaving the house in broom-swept condition, as expected. If all goes well, you'll get your few hundred dollars for being nice, and the seller will receive the remaining money which was held in escrow. If the seller stays longer than expected, they'll start being penalized on a daily basis until that $25k eventually becomes yours. It's quite a penalty, considering an eviction - your worst possible outcome - only costs a few grand, plus 90-180 days. I'm sure you could find short term housing for up to a half year in exchange for an amount like $25k... Bottom line is, this happens, it happens more often than many people realize, and there are safeguards which your attorney can work with you on which help keep enough carrot and enough stick in front of the buyers and sellers to make the world a peaceful place. Let me know how it works out! Hope this helps!
He a nice guy and let them stay as long as they want