Hat tip to RE for sending along this U-T article describing a big mistake that often happens – buyers closing escrow with the occupants still residing in the house.
Verify the house is vacant before closing!
Ed Struiksma, the onetime San Diego councilman and acting mayor, has been flying mostly under the radar in the two decades since he left office. A dozen years ago, a U-T story said he was dabbling in diamonds (import-export). Four years ago, he was spokesman for the San Diego Auto Connection and its tent sales at Qualcomm Stadium.
Two years ago, a Wall Street Journal story had him the victim of an “advance fee scheme” by a loan company collecting nonrefundable deposits. Struiksma said he wanted a loan to buy land for a housing development. Now, it appears, Struiksma has new housing troubles.
According to David Potts, Struiksma has “filed bankruptcy in an effort to avoid eviction” from the Coto de Caza house Potts purchased earlier this year after the bank foreclosed on Struiksma.
Potts says he first agreed to help Struiksma by allowing him to occupy the house until Oct. 28, and a legal document to that effect was signed by Struiksma in September. But, he says, Struiksma has since refused to leave, with his bankruptcy filing delaying his eviction. (Struiksma didn’t responded to my messages left on his answering machine.) Meanwhile, Potts has commenced to take the story public by laying it all out on a website called evict-struiksma.com.
Maybe its just me, but this guy Potts seems to be laying on the victim mentality a bit thick.
Fine, the squatter filed Bankruptcy. It is not usually a big deal to go to the Bankruptcy judge to allow you to finish your eviction. There is a delay, but not usually for very long. See, e.g.
http://www.casb.uscourts.gov/html/csdforms/CSD1163.pdf
But Potts seems to be crying victim with press anouncements instead of taking action to get the guy out.
Agreed, for a guy who paid $998,000 for a 4,400sf house, you’d think he’d be spending his time/money on the best OC attorney available.
Without the bankruptcy, how long can a tenant delay an eviction? Can’t they file enough motions to drag it out 2-4 months, and then file BK for the extended-stay program?
From what I know it is a lot easier to evict a homeowner than it is a tenant in a foreclosure in ca.I think the tenant has up to 90 days.With the homeowner you serve 3 day notice.they dont leave you have to go through ct eviction process which could take about a month.Most of these homewoners dont want an eviction because they will have a hard time renting after that.
Since Potts owns the house, why can’t he just cut off the utilities and ‘smoke’ him out?
As long as the property owner has their act together, from start to finish, a contested eviction against a former owner, including filing for bankruptcy, should not take longer than three months. If one goes into bankruptcy court for relief from stay “ex parte”, or on an expedited basis after you have won your eviction in state court, bankruptcy hardly causes any delay at all. Maybe a week or two.
Sure, there are things that can throw a cog in the machinery, but its not like the former owner can credibly claim the tougher eviction defenses such as breach of a warranty of habitability or breach of quiet enjoyment.
Maybe it’s just me and I’m far from rich. Making two house payments and insurance for even just 3 months seems very expensive. The new owners admitted that it took everything they had to buy the place. I would not assume that they have a lot of money to spare. Basically, the new owner should not have to go through this, especially since he was kind enough (foolish enough) to let the guy stay til COE. The deadbeat should honor the agreement and get out! Now further concern is what condition the house will be in once the guy finally vacates. I feel for the new owners.
In case you are wondering what his realtor did to protect him?
It was dual agency – the listing agent represented both buyer and seller.
This is America. Can’t you just shoot the intruder?
(I kid of course 🙂 )
So does that mean as part of the contract to buy a home you need to add a clause that the seller removes the existing tenants or else the sale is canceled?
Can you add this as a requirement during Escrow?
Curious minds want to know.
It is in the contract boilerplate that tenant-occupied properties need to be vacant 5 days before close.
Owner-occ is left open to be determined, and the old standard of giving the seller 2 or 3 days after close to vacate is still around. It is trouble waiting to happen.
I like GameAgent’s idea. See how long they stay with the water and/or power turned off.
Wait, why didn’t the buyer insist that the seller (bank/reo) evict the former owner and actually deliver possession at the close of escrow? Isn’t that one of the few benefits to buying it from the bank as an REO versus bidding on the courthouse steps?
Sean, see #7