Sellers intent to sell only part of the parcel

[svansingel]

Michigan

Sale was for sale by owner.
Owner had two Parcels with Tax ID's each.
There is a large parcel with a house and barn, he also had a small parcel with just land.
The owner Sold the large parcel with the house and barn on it. Now claims he did not intend to sell the barn.
Can the seller just decide to move the property line ?
He is claiming that is was Understood where the property line was and that he was not selling the barn ?

 

[HRZ]

WHat does the deed say? IF he sold parcel XYZ then that's what he sold

 

[Whoops2u]

Michigan

Sale was for sale by owner.
Owner had two Parcels with Tax ID's each.
There is a large parcel with a house and barn, he also had a small parcel with just land.
The owner Sold the large parcel with the house and barn on it. Now claims he did not intend to sell the barn.
Can the seller just decide to move the property line ?
He is claiming that is was Understood where the property line was and that he was not selling the barn ?

The seller cannot just decide to move the property line. I agree with @HRZ that the deed is important to the final determination. The contract for sale is important too. If those are on your side, you have a great case.

 

[svansingel]

The Deed is in her name and matches the survey that was done after the sale.
The Sales agreement has the Parcel number.
The Tax id is in her name.
There is nothing claiming he was selling the parcel but not part of the land where the Barn is on.
The buyer was told she had less land that was purchased, so she only used part of the land.

Now that the survey verifies the actual boundries, The Deed covers the entire Parcel. The Tax ID is her Parcel, and she has been paying taxes for her home and land plus the barn.

The seller is just saying he did not intend to sell the barn. His lawyer is saying that it was mutual understanding of the property line.

 

[HRZ]

Is this a done deal sold or merely a written agreement to sell XYX ...I read it as "sold"

 

[svansingel]

This was sold 4 years ago.
She has been dealing with this issue for 2 years now.
The only thing the seller is saying is: He did not intend to sell the barn and that both parties agreed on the land boundary

 

[quincy]

Has the previous owner been using the barn?

 

[HRZ]

THe sellers attorney is being paid to advocate the sellers point of view ...even if dead wrong .

Apparently the deed matches the survey which matches the tax ID ...so,where is rhe gap? THe dead counts! And generally speaking oral deals have zero weight as to RE sales under the statute of frauds .

EVen if the two of them had lengthy paper discussions about the barn, high odds that all that disappears under the doctrine of merge at closing .

IF the buyer is allowing seller any use of anything .not even 3' ..( absent a real lease) I'd stop that like by noon tomorrow and serve him a no trespassing notice /posting consistent with state law .....

 

[Whoops2u]

The seller is just saying he did not intend to sell the barn. His lawyer is saying that it was mutual understanding of the property line.

If the intention of the parties differ from an unambiguous written contract, you might ask him how he intends to prove it. You don't need an integration/merger clause for the parol evidence rule to limit what he can introduce. Absent strong facts you haven't mentioned, I don't think his testimony would be admissible about clearly written terms on the deed and contract.

 

[svansingel]

As for the seller has been using the barn and actually had a camper on part of the property. (for 2 years)
Owner has posted no tresspassing signs.
His lawyer is now claiming they will get a PPO against the buyer for harassing the seller

 

[quincy]

As for the seller has been using the barn and actually had a camper on part of the property. (for 2 years)
Owner has posted no tresspassing signs.
His lawyer is now claiming they will get a PPO against the buyer for harassing the seller

Thank you for the additional information. I was wondering what led to the dispute.

 

[Whoops2u]

As for the seller has been using the barn and actually had a camper on part of the property. (for 2 years)
Owner has posted no tresspassing signs.
His lawyer is now claiming they will get a PPO against the buyer for harassing the seller

I don't think that will change the end result, but, THAT is a pretty big fact that was not included and could cost a little in legal fees to overcome. Whenever I've purchased real property, I always make an inspection to make sure the soon to be former owner has left. It solves problems just like this. I know that doesn't help you.

In any event, if you want to evict what seems to be a holdover tenant, you might need an attorney yourself. Sue the previous owner for trespass and seek ejection and damages.

 

[svansingel]

There is nothing in writing that states he is not selling the barn. Only his word that there was an agreement.
The seller is claiming that he thought the property line was where a fence is deviding the propertys.
How do we argue against his claim that he thought the property line was in a different place ?
BTW: I really do appreciate everyone's help and advice.

 

[quincy]

If the previous owner has an attorney, you would be smart to have one, too.

 

[HRZ]

The seller is very unwise to permit others to use the place absent written leases prepared by her attorney to protect her.

And by allowing him use it it makes trespaspassing hard to support .

WHy is "buyer " not charging a steep monthly rental for barn and parking space plus requireing proof of replacement value insurance with "buyer" as named insured ?