What do you think about having the opportunity to stay in a home for a few days before actually purchasing it? Would you want to do it?

You'll never like a property as much as the 1st day you laid eyes on it.

If it was so easy to move the current Owners out and let you move in for a few days, everyone would do it. That would be just about as simple as taking a Used Car out for a Test Drive . . . . but it's not that simple for houses.

On vacant homes, I have arranged for control of the property to be temporarily handed over to the Buyers in advance of the Closing in order to complete repairs mandated by their Mortgagee; but it was quite complicated, requiring the preparation of an Interlocutory Agreement with the Sellers to protect both Parties, with insurance or immunity clarified, in the event of injuries, damage, or the theft of building materials, or whatever other accidents could occur or befall them during their short "temporary" occupancy . . . . and to also guarantee that the "temporary period" has an agreed upon "ending". It was an expensive "non-routine" legal document to prepare; but necessary.

It remains true that "Familiarity breeds Contempt".

Its not commen here, but not unheard of either. If the buyer needs that, they are not in love with the house and will pick it apart. Ditto everything Vermont says also.

I think that there was a reality real estate tv show based upon this idea a few years ago.

The Tv show didn't last long so that is probably all you need to know about this idea.

I think that it would be a legal nightmare and you'd probably end up with a lot of people free loading for a free holiday & hotel room.

If possible it would be a nice experience for any one but i have not heard before about this kind of experience of any one reason is price negotiating is an important part of the deals and no one can be ready to get bother if deal is simply a scam.

It's unheard of that Seller will allow a buyer to stay in seller's home for a few days for free before the buyer actually purchases the home, unless the Seller has some kind of close relationship with the buyer like being the buyer's relative or friend.

If the buyers want to stay in the house so bad, why not have them rent it for a month before purchasing.

I devoted some time to explaining this matter last year (above); but it may bear some repeating and elaboration:

Homes ARE NOT like Used Cars, sitting on a lot, and no longer used by their former registered owners.

Homes cannot be taken out for a quick test drive around the block . . . . or maybe used for a weekend trip up to the mountains to see how they perform.

Occupancy by the current Owner of a Home typically endures right up to the point of the Closing and Transfer of Title; and it continues to be available for consideration by other Buyers right up to the point that a "firm" P&S Contract comes into being.

From a practical point of view, this suggestion is froth with trouble; but having the Seller vacate the property and tender occupancy to prospective new Owners, for any length of time, would bring with it all of the issues currently faced in the rental business PLUS the legal entanglements germane to the actual buying and selling process.

If it were so simple, and if houses were ordinarily vacated while they were being marketed, then in the interest of facilitating the sale, it would be routinely done . . . . but it is very doubtful that it would help at all.

But go ahead and try it out for yourself (with your own home).

Saw someone do this on a high rolling property in New York city TV show. Wouldn't recommend it for the mainstream. Way too much risk/downside in this litigious society.

[quote=Eric Estate]If the buyers want to stay in the house so bad, why not have them rent it for a month before purchasing. [/quote]

That's nice idea.