Can a Seller Require Proof of Funds Prior to Seeing a Property?
Although this may sound uncouth, it is perfectly legal for a seller to require proof of funds before showing the property to a prospective buyer or his broker.
In fact, the seller has a wide latitude when it comes to requirements he may wish to impose before showing a property – all of which is perfectly legal. Before even showing the property, the seller can go further and even demand an actual offer from the buyer (yes you read that right). Though this most often occurs in the sale of very upscale homes (or celebrity owned properties), it is the seller’s option to exercise.
Overall, it is important to understand that a seller can require a panoply of information before the buyer sets foot on the property.
The “proof of funds” requirement would serve to weed out “buyers” who are not serious and just want to spend a day viewing mansions and celebrity homes, thereby wasting the seller’s time.
If you’re the listing agent with a particular seller request, be certain to get it in writing to avoid confusion and to clarify the precise nature of the request. If you’re the buyer’s agent, be certain to inform the buyer what the seller requires before a viewing of the property can occur.
For the protection of the buyer, certain information can be redacted from any information supplied to the seller, such as account numbers, social securities numbers, or a home address.
As far as the actual law is concerned: Standard of Practice 3-9 which supports Article 3 of the Code of Ethics, says realtors shall not provide access to a listed property on terms other than those established by the owner or the listing broker. When a seller requires a buyer to meet certain prerequisites before entering the property, realtors are obligated to comply.”
Further: “IF the listing agent permits access contrary to the seller’s instruction or if he ignores the seller’s instructions, both realtors could be the subject of an ethics violation. If the listing agent is at fault, it would be a possible violation of 1-16 and in the case of cooperating agent, Article 3 based on Standards and Practices 3-9 could apply.