Emlak avukatları, önceki sahibi yeni evinizden çıkmayı reddettiğinde polisi aramanın neden yardımcı olmayacağını açıkladı

Real estate lawyers reveal why calling police won't help when a previous owner refuses to leave your new home

Christy Bieber

Sat, August 15, 2026 at 3:30 PM GMT+3 5 min read

shutterstock.com

Most home-buying contracts successfully reach closing, with just 6% of all purchase agreements terminated and only 12% of contracts resulting in delayed closings.

Once you've closed on your home, you become the official legal owner of the property and the seller no longer has any right to it at all. Unfortunately, sometimes the former owner may not want to leave right away, or may not be able to do so — which can create a lot of headaches.

Must Read

Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one
Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake. Here's what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP
The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028. Here are 4 moves to make before the window closes

Let's pretend, for example, that Kara just bought her very first home, but the seller, Marcus, negotiated with Kara to stay for 30 days after closing. Now, Kara paid her money a month ago, has taken title to the house and is dealing with a former owner who won't leave despite the fact that 30 days are up.

The big question is, what are Kara's rights as the new owner and how can she get Marcus out of the home for good? Unfortunately, experts say it may not be so simple.

The post-occupancy clause will determine the remedy

As Kara is finding out now, she may have made a mistake when she agreed to allow Marcus to stay.

"When you purchase a home, you're really just transferring title and the goal is to do that 'free and clear' from any encumbrances," Barry E. Janay, Esq., a real estate lawyer and founder of The Law Office of Barry E. Janay, P.C., told Moneywise. Unfortunately, that's not what happened here. Instead, Janay said, "in this scenario, there's a tenant or holdover."

Essentially, when Kara allowed the former owner to stay, this decision may have created a landlord-tenant or occupancy relationship, depending on state law and the terms of the agreement — which were hopefully laid out in a post-closing occupancy agreement that became part of the purchase contract.

If Kara and Marcus included a clause in that document giving Marcus the right to remain on the premises, then the terms of their agreement will dictate what happens next. Jonathan White, managing partner at the real estate firm Jordan & White, LLC, told Moneywise that a post-closing occupancy agreement might characterize Marcus as a tenant or a licensee.

If Kara and Marcus had no written agreement, but Marcus was allowed to remain temporarily and then stayed longer than he should have, many jurisdictions treat him as a type of holdover occupant. However, the exact classification depends on state law.

For example, he could be treated as a tenant at sufferance, or someone who stays at a property after their legal right to occupy it has ended.

"That characterization [as a tenant, licensee, or tenant at sufferance] drives whether you proceed through the summary eviction process or a different court action, and the two move at different speeds," White said.

The eviction process is likely going to be needed

Regardless of how Marcus is characterized under the law, Kara is most likely going to have to go through some type of formal legal process to get him out. And, this process may not begin the way you'd expect.

"Buyers are frequently surprised that calling the police accomplishes nothing," said White. "I've seen it many times. Officers arrive, look at the deed, listen to both sides, and tell the buyer this is a civil matter. That's the correct answer under the law in most places, and it is the moment the buyer realizes owning the property and having the right to occupy it are two separate things."

White explained that Kara is looking at a "court process" that could take anywhere from several weeks to several months, depending on whether she must go through a full eviction process or can take advantage of summary eviction. Summary eviction is faster, and if Marcus is a tenant at sufferance, Kara is more likely to qualify for this option.

While the process can vary by state, during the full eviction process, Kara may have to provide written notice to Marcus, file the paperwork with the court and prove Marcus has no continued legal right to the property

If Kara proves that Marcus should be evicted and the court rules in her favor, then the court should give Kara a writ of possession (or similar document). Kara can then take it to the sheriff, who will enforce it for a fee and remove Marcus.

"Meanwhile the buyer is often carrying a mortgage on a house he cannot live in, paying for temporary housing, and storing furniture," said White. Unfortunately, this is all something Kara perhaps could have avoided had she known better.

"In my practice, we always try to avoid these situations with 'use and occupancy' agreements because they can last longer than anticipated and lead to disputes," Janay said. "Oftentimes when we represent buyers, when a seller absolutely needs such an agreement, we make the terms pretty onerous, especially if the term expires or the seller requests an extension."

Still, since it's too late for Kara to do that, she also has one other option worth considering. As White explained, "in practice, a negotiated payment to get the occupant out, sometimes called cash for keys, resolves the situation faster and cheaper than litigation. It feels unfair, but it's often the right business decision."

Emlak avukatları, önceki sahibi yeni evinizden çıkmayı reddettiğinde polisi aramanın neden yardımcı olmayacağını açıkladı

Must Read

The post-occupancy clause will determine the remedy

The eviction process is likely going to be needed

What To Read Next

Yorumlar (0)