Reader Question: My parents sold their condo, with the closing date of June 6. They were required to vacate that day. We used pods for the move, but the company couldn't pick them up until June 7. It rained heavily on closing day, and one pod leaked, so we had to unload it. The company didn't show up to repair it, so we fixed it ourselves and reloaded on June 8. The buyers' family showed up to help load items, but their carelessness caused some damage. The pods were finally removed on June 9. The buyer now demands $1,000 for four extra days of occupancy and $1,500 for his family's time reloading. We offered a few hundred dollars, but he refused. What are we legally responsible for paying?

Monty's Answer: You raise an issue that crops up more often than most people realize: what happens when a seller doesn't fully vacate at closing? In your case, the problem wasn't deliberate. You turned over possession as promised, but the moving pods were delayed. That created an uncomfortable overlap for both of you.

Legal Responsibility vs. Practical Resolution

The legal responsibility depends on what was written into the contract. If the purchase agreement did not contain a rent-back clause or specific penalty for holding over, the buyer's claim to $250 per day for "extra occupancy" is questionable. The sellers discontinued use of the property; the pods were the only holdover. That is an inconvenience, but it is not the same as living in the home after closing.

As for $1,500 in "family labor," this is also a stretch. Unless there was a written agreement that you hired them or promised payment, there is no legal basis for compensation. If items were damaged while they moved them carelessly, they arguably owe you for that damage, not the other way around.

What a Court Might Do

If the buyer pursued a small-claims case, a judge would likely distinguish between inconvenience and damages. The judge may award some nominal amount — perhaps the fair rental value of the garage space or parking area for those extra days. That could amount to tens of dollars per day, not hundreds. Claims for "volunteer labor" rarely succeed, because nobody requested or authorized the work.

Why Compromise Can Be Cheaper

Even though the buyer's $2,500 demand is overblown, lawsuits are disruptive and costly, and enduring the stress may cost more than a reasonable settlement. Your offer of a few hundred dollars was sensible. Sometimes sweetening that offer can make the problem go away. The buyer may still refuse, but if they do, their case looks weaker to a judge.

The Big Lesson

The broader lesson is for future transactions. Buyers and sellers should always anticipate move-out complications. Trucks break down, movers get delayed, weather interferes. A short written "rent-back" agreement can prevent these disputes. It sets a clear daily rate and defines responsibilities. The fact that your agreement lacked such a clause left room for misunderstanding.

Bottom Line

Legally, you are probably responsible for little or nothing beyond perhaps a token amount reflecting temporary loss of full use of the property. The buyer's $2,500 claim is excessive and unlikely to hold up in court. Offering a modest payment could still be the quickest way to put the matter behind you.

Richard Montgomery is a syndicated columnist, published author, retired real estate executive, serial entrepreneur and the founder of DearMonty.com and PropBox, Inc. He provides consumers with options to real estate issues. Follow him on Twitter (X) @montgomRM or DearMonty.com.

Photo credit: Alexander Mils at Unsplash