Real Property v. Personal Property - Hypothetical Case Study

Mr. Jones listed his home for sale with RE agent Bill Smith. Mr. Jones informed the listing agent of specific fixtures in the home that will not be included in the sale as they are family heirlooms. Mr. Jones stated that the items will be removed and replaced with other items.

RE agent Bill Smith listed the home and wrote a note in the agent comment section stating that there are some items excluded from the sale of the home. The public cannot view these comments and unless they were told by their agent (some agents dont have access to the MLS either), they would have no way to know if it isnt specified in the contract.

Mr. and Mrs. Clines decided to make an offer on the home through their RE agent Mr. Walker. The offer was accepted and the transaction proceeded throughout the transaction without issue.

Final walk through was performed 4 days before Close of Escrow (COE) and all was as expected.

COE (close of escrow) and recording complete and Buyer took possession of their new home at 6 pm on the date of closing.

The buyers, Mr. and Mrs. Clines contacted their RE agent Mr. Walker, stating that many of the items considered to be fixtures and included as Real Property had been removed from the home and replaced with cheap fixtures.

3 bathroom mirrors - Light fixtures in 3 bathrooms - 1 entry chandelier

The buyers, Mr. and Mrs. Clines were furious, these items were cosmetic differences, but the quality of the items removed were a contributing factor when considering the price they paid.

The sellers response: Sellers had advised their listing agent that the items listed were not a part of the sale, therefore they were entitled to remove them.

1. Consider what action could be taken. Mediation/Arbitration/Litigation?
2. Should the (heirloom) items be returned to the home for the new homeowners?
3. Who do you think would be held responsible in the courts opinion?
4. What could the sellers, and agents have done to avoid this potential litigation?
5. Who could be held financially responsible?