The closing is the last step in the long, sometimes difficult, almost always anxious journey in buying and selling a house. And it can be just as ripe for pitfalls as any other part of the process.

According to a poll of 50,000 agents and brokers by the National Association of Realtors, only 6% of settlements go off without some kind of hitch.

Any number of things can go wrong, from being forced to sit on your hands while documentation errors are corrected to the would-be buyer going MIA. The latter incident is all too common, according to realty agents on industry site ActiveRain.com. Sometimes, when buyers get cold feet, they just outright disappear.

If your long-lost buyer has an agent, that person should be able to locate their client to determine what's wrong. Otherwise, a call to your attorney is in order.

At the very least, you should be able to pocket the buyer's earnest money: the dough they put up when they made their initial offer to buy your place. Earnest money is intended to compensate you for the time your place has been off the market if the deal does not close.

So why would a buyer bail? Sometimes their circumstances change -- they switched jobs after the contract was signed, perhaps, or they bought a new vehicle or a house full of furniture. Changes like this can mean a buyer no longer meets their lender's all-important debt-to-income ratio -- and thus no longer qualifies for financing. According to NAR's survey, this is far and away the most common reason for delayed closings.

Buyers should be advised by their agents not to do anything that changes their financial picture or credit score before closing. But if they do, the only thing a seller can do is put the house back on the market -- or wait for the buyer to requalify. In one case, a Nashville seller waited 45 days until the buyer's first paycheck from their new job arrived, putting the deal back on.

It's another story if the buyer -- or seller -- simply changes their mind. Maybe the seller decides not to give up the old homestead where their kids were born and raised. Or perhaps the buyer realizes they bit off more than they could chew, and can't really afford the monthly payments.

In cases like this, one party can sue the other for specific performance, thereby forcing the balky buyer or seller to carry through on the contract. If you are the seller, you can keep the earnest money. Or both of you can simply move on.

More often, though, the issue is a mistake in the paperwork. Luke Babich of Clever Real Estate in St. Louis says paperwork errors are "hands down" one of the most common causes of closing delays. "Even something as small as a misspelled name or transposed house number can render a document invalid," he says.

When even the slightest miscue is discovered, everything grinds to a halt until corrections are made and new documents are produced. That could just take a few minutes, or it could be days.

That's why both parties should review the closing documents in advance. Hey, you're supposed to get them three days prior to settlement anyway, so why not take a good, hard look at them? Then you can fix anything that needs fixing before it becomes a major headache.

Delays also can be caused by title issues such as unpaid property taxes, obscure lawsuits, numerous types of liens on the property, or even forgeries like the fake signature of a long-divorced spouse. Approximately 1 in 8 agents in the NAR survey encountered title and deed issues at settlement, and title companies report that more than a third of all contracts require "extraordinary work" to clean up the title.

Babich reminds buyers that they can -- and should -- purchase insurance to protect against flaws that title searches may have missed. "But it doesn't work retroactively," he said, so title issues must be addressed before the current sale can be closed.

Here, sellers might want to look for the title policy they purchased when they bought the house to see if that company overlooked the same issue. Otherwise, there is little anyone can do but cancel the deal, or sit tight until the problems are resolved.

Closing delays can also be caused by latent dissatisfaction with the contract. This problem usually stems from one party's bitterness with the initial negotiation process, and can show up in all sorts of ways: Perhaps the buyer says they're dissatisfied with how the repairs were made, or maybe the seller says that if the buyer won't pay all the closing costs, the deal's off.

Whatever the reason closing is held up, it's best to take a deep breath and let the situation play out. Patience is a virtue. If you keep your cool, your sale is likely to close -- whatever the delay you encounter.

Did you know that homebuyers and sellers who have an issue with their agents can take their grievances to a state real estate commission?

If you didn't, you're not alone. According to the latest report from the Consumer Federation of America -- a national organization of more than 250 state and local nonprofit consumer groups -- 21 of 47 state commissions' websites ignore consumers altogether. Only 11 provide what the CFA calls "adequate" consumer information.

However, it may be a good thing buyers and sellers are unaware they can call their state agencies for help. These agencies' shared purpose may be to regulate agents, brokers and firms, and they may be mandated to receive, investigate and act on consumer complaints. But not one such institution has the authority to provide restitution to consumers who are found to have been treated unfairly or unlawfully.

While most states maintain so-called recovery funds to allow aggrieved consumers to apply for redress, the CFA recently reported that complainants only qualify if they have a favorable decision from a court or mediator.

CFA senior fellow Stephen Brobeck found only a handful of states that publicly report information about complaints. Where information was available, less than 10% of the gripes resulted in a citation, fine, license suspension or revocation for the offender. And even then, a majority of the actions were not the result of a consumer complaint, but rather an agent's criminal conviction or acting without a license.

Brobeck found disciplinary action against agents usually took the form of fines, and sometimes a requirement that the offender take a class, often in professional ethics. Rarely was a licensed revoked.

The CFA official also finds fault with the makeup of these commissions (called "boards" in some states). Just 15% of the seats on these boards are held by individuals from outside the real estate business, and none are held by consumer or housing advocates. Only in New York is the State Board of Real Estate required to have a majority of nonindustry members.

And that's not the extent of the industry's dominance. Of the identifiable nonindustry seats, the CFA report says that almost half are either vacant or held by people from allied business -- or agents or brokers themselves.

In other words, in most places, the fox is guarding the henhouse.

"A commission dominated by industry members is predisposed to view issues through an industry lens, make decisions that favor the industry over consumers, and sometimes forget that its mandate is to serve consumers as well as the industry," the report says.

Governors typically appoint realty commission members, usually at the behest of the board and its administrator. But even then, a couple of questions arise: If they are selected by the industry, do they have consumer interests at heart? And do they have the will to challenge those who selected them in the first place?

These commissions have value in that they train and license agents and brokers, and can penalize them for a wide array of offenses. But for consumers, they leave much to be desired. "Many commissioners from the industry ignore consumers or fail to understand and appreciate the important role in informing and protecting buyers and sellers," Brobeck says.

State realty agencies would be far more likely to recognize and act on their obligations to buyers and sellers if there were strong public and nonprofit leaders who also held commission seats.

Brobeck would like to see more representation from consumer organizations and housing advocates -- perhaps an attorney or even an economist with "no financial ties" to the business.

"Even a single consumer or housing advocate ... would likely have a positive impact," he says.

This latest CFA report comes at a time when the practice of residential real estate -- a $2 trillion-a-year business, resulting in $100 million in sales commissions -- is coming under increased scrutiny. Several antitrust suits have been filed against the National Association of Realtors, for example. And the Justice Department has withdrawn a settlement that the previous administration made with NAR in order to more fully investigate the group's rules and conduct.

In its latest court filing, DOJ says NAR's rules "restrict how real estate agents can market properties, dictate how real estate commissions are set and impede commission negotiations."

Brobeck believes his study fits right in with those examinations.

"State real estate commissions should not escape the scrutiny the industry has been under," he says. "The lack of independent and effective regulation has contributed to the anti-competitive practices that are subject to private and government antitrust litigation."

In a previous report, the CFA specifically faulted the absence of information that buyers and sellers need to make informed decisions on state realty commission websites. Only 11 such websites earned a "good" rating from the CFA, and not a single site was considered "excellent." Those in 39 states and the District of Columbia were rated either "fair" or "poor."

"The inadequate consumer information provided by most real estate commissions largely reflects the fact that they were created and are dominated by the industry," Brobeck said at the time. "They clearly don't recognize their responsibility to consumers at all. They need to take consumers more seriously."

There are "haunted houses" -- you know, the ones that pop up this time of year where you pay to have the bejesus frightened out of you. And then there are "real" haunted houses -- the ones where ghastly spooks supposedly live on, long after they should have transferred into the afterlife.

If you enjoy the former, then you might have a hankering to live in the latter. According to the latest spirited survey from Clever Real Estate, a service that matches consumers with realty agents, most people don't set out to buy a haunted house -- but they also don't give a twitch if they happen to buy one.

Indeed, Clever's annual Halloween poll found that in the current seller's market -- where some houses are snapped up in a matter of hours, for far more than the asking price -- almost 75% said they'd be open to buying a place they'd have to share with ghosts, goblins and what-have-you. Somewhat more frightening, 13% of the 1,000 respondents would prefer to live in a haunted house, and 27% of those brave hearts would pay above market value to do so.

If that's you, consider the house in Burrillville, Rhode Island, that inspired the 2013 horror film "The Conjuring." The three-bedroom farmhouse on eight acres, which hit the market last month for $1.2 million, is one of the most famous haunted homes in the country.

The current owners, Jennifer and Cory Heinzen, who snapped up the home a couple of years ago for a mere $439,000, are said to have encountered numerous spirits while living there. After moving in, the self-described paranormal investigators spent their first four months in a single downstairs room so the spirits could get used to their presence. However, they say they still received a ghostly welcome from a dark figure that peeked at them from the room's doorway.

Purported to be haunted by the presence of Bathsheba Sherman, who resided there in the 1800s, the place is the subject of numerous books, movies and stories. But none is more chilling than that of the Perron family, who lived in the farmhouse in the 1970s. The family of seven noticed ghostly goings-on such as beds shaking and a broom moving by itself. The family brought in paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren in 1973, who reportedly witnessed the terrifying events that inspired the film.

Although "The Conjuring" was not actually filmed at the house, living there could be a great conversation starter. Ghosts or not, beware of real-life visitors: The previous owners reportedly complained that fans of the movie would show up at all hours.

But that's not the only paranormal property on the market. London-based company lovePROPERTY lists several, including Earlshall Castle in Scotland.

Sir William Bruce, a descendant of 14th-century Scottish king Robert the Bruce, began to build Earlshall in 1546. Set on 34 acres, the castle is reportedly haunted by Sir Andrew, a brutal soldier nicknamed "the Bloody Bruce." A phantom figure is frequently seen in the bedroom that Andrew used, and heavy footsteps are heard on the staircase.

The asking price is not widely available, but the place last sold in 2016 for $6.7 million.

Closer to home -- and, at $899,000, not nearly as expensive -- the Priestley House in Canton, Mississippi, also has a spooky past. The four-bedroom manse was built by Dr. James Priestley in 1852. But the doctor and his wife, Susan, both died in the house in the early 1900s, and ever since, it's been allegedly been haunted.

The most recent owners insist they saw the ghost of Susan in the bedroom where she died, and neighbors are said to have seen her figure standing at the window. A piano has been heard playing on its own, too.

According to the study by Clever, most people aren't turned off by places like these -- and there seems to be no shortage of them. Nearly half of respondents said they'd already lived in a haunted house, and a large majority of those said they were aware of the otherworldly occupants prior to moving in. What made them believe their houses were haunted? Most heard strange noises, felt they were being touched or sensed they were being watched. Others saw strange shadows, objects that levitated or moved on their own, or other aberrations.

Here's the big question, though: Did these houses' sellers disclose the presence of wraiths? Only about half said "yes," even though the law in many locales requires sellers and their agents to do so.

If the respondents were the ones selling, on the other hand, nearly two-thirds said they would avoid disclosing a haunting -- including 10% who wouldn't do so even if required by law.

Thankfully, a third would warn would-be buyers, regardless of what the law demands.