In my over 40 years of conducting real estate closings in New England, I wouldn’t say I have seen everything. I would say, however, that\u00a0I have seen enough to reach the conclusion that having the Seller present at a real estate closing is rarely a positive experience, and in some instances, is an invitation to trouble.<\/p>\n
Put aside the possible distractions of having another “persona” at the closing table who wants to comment about the length of the process or the interminable amount of paperwork involved in a typical real estate closing. That is part of the territory, and\u00a0I believe I, and the other people in my law firm, know how to deal with that. Also, put aside the possible antagonisms that may have developed between the Seller and the Buyer over some aspect of the pre-purchase and sale negotiations about the property. The real estate professionals at the closing table should have the skill to deflect this aspect of the process, so things can proceed at an acceptable pace.<\/p>\n
The real problem is the potential for litigation about the condition of the premises based on a comment, or lack of comment, made by an attending Seller. If I am representing a Seller at a closing, armed with a durable Power of Attorney, I am duly ignorant about the history of the home or the condition of the premises. If I am asked about the “spot” on the bedroom ceiling, or the trace of water that the inspector found in the finished basement, I can truly answer “I do not know”, and that will be the end of the discussion.<\/p>\n
What if the Seller is present and asked the same question? As a point of fact, there was a water problem, maybe 6 years ago, and the derivation of the problem had been found, and the problem resolved. The Seller just had not gotten around to “painting and patching” the spot on the ceiling. That explanation would be honest, and should be sufficient to end the discussion. What if the Seller panics, and thinks, if I mention water now, I may kill the sale, right at the closing table? So, the Seller either denies that there was ever a problem or otherwise\u00a0lies about why there is a spot. Months, or years, later, there is a water problem in the home, and the Buyer clearly remembers the Seller stating, at the closing, before many witnesses, that there was NO water? The chances for a lawsuit, even after closing, are greatly increased.<\/p>\n
The moral of this story is that we, as real estate professionals, are better served if the Seller does not attend the closing. If the Seller wants to meet the Buyer, or convey information important information about the home to the Buyer, suggest a post closing event. Better yet, suggest that the Seller write down information for the Buyer and deliver it at the closing. While the writer hates to be as defensive as the suggestions in this post appear, litigation after a sale is costly and never really benefits either the Buyer or the Seller.\u00a0 It certainly is not a felicitous event for a realtor. The Buyer is purchasing a “used” home in most circumstances. Small problems are bound to appear. Gratuitous, or even fabricated, remarks at a closing by the Seller can be costly. Use your influence on your customer to prevent the problem before it arises.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In my over 40 years of conducting real estate closings in New England, I wouldn’t say I have seen everything. I would say, however, that\u00a0I have seen enough to reach the conclusion that having the Seller present at a real estate closing is rarely a positive experience, and in some instances, is an invitation to … Continue reading Seller’s attending closings–Very little to gain: Perhaps a lot to lose<\/span>