Everything is negotiable, but if I'm representing the buyer, the seller should pay rent and insurancee.

The buyer is paying interest immediately so the Seller should not get a lengthly free ride !

Yes.  If they cannot relinquish the property per the contract then they should be paying rent and they should keep their insurance in place until they can vacant.

The Seller should be out regardless.  Their belongings should have been packed up and loaded the day prior to closing to provide vacant possession.  They can pay rent to a hotel and storage facility!

Paul S. Henderson, REALTOR®, Broker, Tacoma Washington A seller should pay rent; however, if arrangements aren't made prior to the closing I believe all you can do is take legal action to have the seller evicted. Time to see an attorney.

What does the contract say about possission? Usually a seller who holds over pays a per diem equal or exceeding the buyer's holding costs!

We have agreements that clearly define who is responsibile for the property upon early move in or seller retained after closing.  Sometimes they stay for nothing, sometimes they rent back.  I try to avoid the situation, but sometimes it's just impossible. 

A Seller's Temporary Lease is negotiated during contract negotiations if the seller is not releasing the home at closing.  If a STL isn't in place and  we discover at the walk-thru the day of closing the home isn't vacant, closing would be delayed until it was straightened out.  The lease stipulates the seller is responsible for everything with the home until they are out!

Yes, we put what the Seller will be charged per diem for staying in the house. It's often motivation to get them out, but I would think long and hard before allowing them to stay past closing. The few times I've done it, it hasn't been pretty.

It depends on the contract. I have had sellers remain and pay an occupancy fee. I have also had sellers not quite out and the buyer moving in on top of them.

In CO there is a per diem that is charged to the seller for failure to hand over the property on the agreed upon date and time. The per diem can be whatever the buyer wants to put in the contract. 

The seller in IL is still responsible. It never would have closed without a 2% holdback from the seller for possession. 

I've only had one seller say 'I'll get out when I'm ready' in all these years. I was flabergasted at his arrogance.

In our state we have a agreement that is fill out for the seller to pay rent if they are not out

What does your contract say about buyer recourse? I know buyers that have withheld funds at closing when the seller wasn't out per the contract (but I am not an attorney and not recommending that).  Seems like the buyers might now be responsible as the owners is you had closing unless there was some other agreement. Attorney time?

In the Colorado contract there is a blank for the daily penalty if the seller isn’t out on time. $150 to $350 is common.

Not something I would want to allow.

In Colorado if a seller remains in the home after closing, we have a post closing agreement to address insurance, utilities and even a deposit. 

Everything is negotiable and I would consider doing a rent-back agreement with the sellers... or start an eviction.

Absolutely and we withhold some of the seller proceeds also

It's part of our purchase agreement.  Possession upon close of escrow or fill-in-the-blank number of days and hour.   It is not uncommon for a seller lease back after the close.   It's all negotiable.  If the buyer obtains a loan, lenders may have an issue --- everyone needs to be informed.   

Post-Possession is highly discouraged.  Just know that YOU are NOT responsible for the house.  When the transaction closed - whatever happens after that involves only the Buyer and the Seller...time for an attorney!

The sellers shouldn't be in the house without a Seller Possession After Closing Agreement, which indeed contains a provision for rent.  In my area, the buyer typically gets the per diem equivalent of his mortgage payment.

First i would not clos eif i could not get possession at closing so yes if they were still there, i would collect rent and have them hold a huge chunk back in escrow as security, 

We have a an addendum that they would sign and ofcourse expect them to pay rent.

The settlement should be deferred until they can offer possession.

That's why we have a "Seller Possession After Closing Agreement," Paul, just for these kinds of instances, which specifically spells out answers to all your questions. It's a bit of mini-rental that sometimes does not carry any "rent" but it's all negotiable between buyer and seller.

Good morning Paul. We have all seen situations like this, but have seen few times that a rent is paid.

Assuming the reason is the seller's responsibility, yes. I had a situation that required delaying access to the new owners and the seller paid compensation equivalent to rent and insurance for those 10 days.

Yes

Paul S. Henderson, REALTOR®, Broker, Tacoma Washington - I think it all depends on the agreement.

Once that had happened with a new construction - and the seller/builder did the right thing.

Yes we call it a Rent Back.

It depends upon the contract terms, closing insurance wording (if applicable), local law amongst other things.

Better check with the lender what their criteria area, especially if it's supposed to be an owner occupied home loan. In any case, your home owners insurance should be aware of this. And I would do another walk-through and I would certainly have them pay a per diem.

This is a ginormous issue, because who is insuring this house? The seller's no longer the owner. The buyer's not in possession. Insurance companies live for this kind of loophole. We had a house on the river burn to the ground during a holdover postpossession . . . I don't know if the lawsuits have been settled even a decade+ later. This should have been dealt with in the contract, or sellers should have gotten the H out. Buyer NEEDS to get an attorney and provide sellers a STRONG incentive to move it, if for no other reason than to prove action was taken. Some kind of agreement needs to be in place and yes, they should be compensating the owner for use of their property.

It isn't my favorite way to deliver a property to a buyer, but we usually negotiate a monthly rental comparable to their PITI per diem.

Sometimes I will have contract with a leaseback. Seller becomes renter at closing. Usually for less than a week. They do pay rent plus utilities and deposit.  It's a win win.  If they stay longer, each day is considerably more than the first week. 

I had to do this a few times. I had my buyer work out an agreement using a RANM form in which the seller leased back the property. We required the seller to put a damage deposit of $500 and worked out a daily rate with the seller until they could move. The day they handed keys over, we did a walk through to make sure everything that was supposed to be left behind was there (refrigerator, washer, dryer). After the buyer walked through and approved of the property, the seller got their deposit back. Its the same as renting a property just on a daily basis. Don't get me wrong, there is RISK to the buyer for being nice.

Yes.

It does happen a lot, unfortunately.

Who is responsible for the delay: seller, a lender, title issues? 

I think so.

Absolutely.  I included that in the contract, with a daily rate that would motivate the seller to get out ASAP.  The responsible party is whoever has legal ownership of the property.  I am a big fan of the home warranty, to cover unexpected expenses.    

Paul,

In commercial real estate, there is an established rate for staying there longer, that is part of the contract.  I would assume that the rental agreement would cover that in terms of insurance, etc.  A

Yes to something should be done. If the seller got it all, he should give in a little. If the buyer got it all, relax a little.