A clean inspection did not save our Montreal sale from financing trouble

S

small_quill

First-time buyer
Established
We have now confirmed that the inspection raised no problem; the deal ended on the lending side instead. That changes how I am thinking about the next offer on our Montreal property, because a good price means little if the financing cannot hold together.

Before relisting, I am considering updating the completed comparables and preparing a brief explanation for agents who ask why the property is back. I am less sure whether to return immediately or wait until those materials are ready.

For the next round, would you favour the strongest price or give more weight to verified financing, a shorter response deadline and clearer deposit terms? I also want to know how buyers intend to deal with a low appraisal rather than discover late in the process that they cannot cover the gap.
 
I would relist promptly and have the agent explain, without unnecessary detail, that the previous buyer’s financing condition was not satisfied. A long unexplained pause may create more suspicion than the failed deal itself.

That said, “proof of funds” only answers part of the question when financing is involved. I’d want to know what was actually verified, how long the financing deadline runs and whether an appraisal remains outstanding.
 
I wouldn’t automatically choose the lower offer. A higher offer with a realistic price, meaningful down payment and sensible conditions may still be safer than a lower offer backed by a vague pre-approval.

Compare the complete offers: financing amount, condition deadlines, inspection protection, deposit terms and what happens if the lender’s appraisal comes in below the agreed price.
 
How old are the completed comparables you used when setting the price, and did anything similar close during those several weeks? If the buyer’s lender had concerns about value rather than the buyer alone, relisting unchanged could reproduce the same problem. Active listings won’t answer that as well as completed sales.
 
I’d take a short pause to make the file cleaner before going live again. Not because the property is defective, but because the next buyer will scrutinize it. Confirm that the listing information, invoices or repair information already available, and any inspection-related responses are organized.

I disagree that speed is always best. A few days spent preventing contradictory answers can be worthwhile.
 
Thanks. There were no repair demands and nothing from the inspection caused the withdrawal; the unresolved issue was the buyer’s financing condition. I agree that lowering the price reflexively may send the wrong signal.

The current plan is a brief document refresh, another look at recently completed comparables, then relisting with a simple explanation. For the next offer, I’ll ask for a clearer financing timeline rather than treating a pre-approval as conclusive.
 
That sounds measured. I’d also resist an overly long response deadline when offers arrive. Extra time can help a buyer clarify financing, but it can also leave the property tied up while other interested parties move on.

Ask each buyer to state exactly what must happen before the financing condition can be removed. The number of days means less without that context.
 
Be careful about treating the deposit as protection against another financing failure. Whether a seller can retain it depends on the offer terms, what conditions remain and Quebec-specific handling of the situation. A larger deposit may show commitment, but it does not make an unqualified buyer financeable. The wording should be discussed with the professionals handling the transaction.
 
Agreed. I’d rank offers in a small table rather than by price alone: offered price, financing required, supporting evidence, appraisal exposure, inspection condition, response deadline and deposit terms. That makes the trade-off visible.

A buyer requesting a normal inspection should not necessarily be marked weak simply because the previous inspection happened to go smoothly.
 
The appraisal gap deserves more attention here. If someone offers above what recent completed sales support, ask whether they can cover any difference between the purchase price and the lender’s valuation. That question can reveal more than a generic financing letter, although any answer still needs to be assessed carefully.
 
There is also seller motivation. If carrying the property for another month is expensive or disruptive, a modestly lower but cleaner offer may have real value. If there is no urgency, you can preserve the asking strategy and wait for stronger terms. The best offer is partly determined by what delay costs this particular seller.
 
For the relisting explanation, keep it factual and short: the prior transaction did not proceed because its financing condition was not satisfied. Don’t speculate about the buyer or publish private financial details. Interested buyers can then focus on the property rather than imagining an undisclosed inspection defect.
 
On pricing, completed comparables should be separated into those that were genuinely similar and those that merely share the neighbourhood. Condition, size and timing can change the inference. If the current asking price is supported, I would keep it; if the strongest comparables point lower, adjusting now may reduce appraisal risk without looking like a panic discount.
 
Before relaunching, I’d settle five items: updated comparable sales, one consistent explanation for the return, organized property information, preferred condition deadlines, and a method for comparing financing strength. Also decide in advance how you would handle a repair-credit request, even though the first inspection caused no issue. Preparation avoids making that decision under an offer deadline.
 
The balanced route seems best: a brief reset rather than either an instant repost or a long disappearance. Keep the price if completed sales support it, preserve reasonable inspection protection, and examine financing and appraisal exposure more closely next time. I would only take less money when the stronger terms have a clear practical value—not simply because the second buyer uses the words “proof of funds.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top