You are working with buyers who have made an offer on another agents listing. Offer was accepted, and you are scheduled to close in 2 weeks. Except when the buyers go by the house for another quick look at their new purchase, they notice that all of the beautiful coi (fish) have been removed from the pond in the back yard. The pond, inlcuding the fish happened to be a great selling point for the home. In this case would the fish be considered personal property or run with the land/home.
If you are not an agent/broker, please do not attempt to answer this question.
THANKS!
2006-07-15 13:20:43 · 9 answers · asked by Lois Lane 3 in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
Fish are personal property.
Check the way the home was listed or the property disclosure.
Tony
www.hqhomes.com
www.CabellaHomeLans.com
2006-07-16 05:12:38 · answer #1 · answered by Tony 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not currently an agent or broker but have had a sales agent's license in the past. If memory and experience serve, the buyer can't assume that anything other than the land and physical building(s) are included in the sale. If something can be detached without damaging the property, you can assume that it may not be included in the sale.
I don't know in what State this transaction occurred, but if the closing is contingent on the inclusion of koi in the transaction, the agent should consult with his/her broker, or the agent and/or the buyers should consult with a local RE attorney. Specific laws regarding what's included in a sale may vary in each State.
However, there seems to me to be flawed logic in the assumption that the koi would be included in the sale. If the property had included a stable, should the buyers assume the horses would be included in a sale of the property? You might be surprised to learn that some koi may be more valuable than a horse, and can run into the thousands of dollars in value. Koi are not just big goldfish. And koi can be considered pets. Certainly, if there were a doghouse on the property, the buyers wouldn't expect the sellers to include their dog in the sale.
As a general rule, any item which the buyers believe is important to their buying decision should be noted and confirmed as being included in the sale. Even items that customarily are included in the sale of a home (e.g., kitchen appliances, light fixtures, etc.) may be itemized to ensure that all parties are clear on the terms of sale.
An experienced RE agent might interrogate his/her buyers to find out if there are any specific features of the property that the buyers really want. Then the agent would submit this list to the seller's agent to discover if the seller is agreeable.
Conversely, if there are things the buyers definitely want removed before they take possession of the property, those items should be explicitly listed as part of the conditions of sale. You can't assume that the pile of junk next to the garage will be gone after closing.
2006-07-15 21:04:04 · answer #2 · answered by ~unfolding.fire~ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would surmise that the Koi in question as they are not a fixture (attached to the property) they would be considered pets. Also, as the transfer of said fish (I’m assuming) were not previously stated in the purchase contract, even though they were a material factor in purchasing the house. The present owner would have the right to take them with them, sell them etc.
If I were the agent representing the buyer, and I had made such a mistake that were discovered in escrow, and the present owners did not want to leave their Koi behind. I might offer to spend a few hundred dollars after COE to purchase some Koi for them.
2006-07-16 13:50:53 · answer #3 · answered by Stephen Newman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agent: the fish are personal property (kind of like a pet). It would have been possible to include them in the purchase price by listing the fish in the contract along with the appliances, etc.
2006-07-15 20:27:18 · answer #4 · answered by carole0103 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
agent, i would think the fish were pets, at least they didn't fill in the pond with the fish in the pond like buyers of my house in California. I state whether or not ponds and fish stay or go now and make sure no one kills the fish.
2006-07-15 20:55:38 · answer #5 · answered by CYNTHIA R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I used to be an Agent.
My answer is: the pond itself would be considered part of the property. BUT the fish (being that they are alive) are Not. The fish would be personal property (like another pet)
2006-07-15 20:25:20 · answer #6 · answered by AJ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fish are personal property and unless stated in the contract, belong to the seller.
Regards
2006-07-17 00:00:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pets are personal property and if it was not specified in the contract, then you are out of luck
2006-07-15 22:11:05 · answer #8 · answered by BigDaddy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't you just buy new fish????
2006-07-15 21:46:35 · answer #9 · answered by Kaz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋