Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We contacted an atty. regarding the solar panel hell we are in with an irresponsible seller who never disclosed the panels in the contract when we were buying this home.!
You signed and closed on the home, knowing about this situation. It's definitely now YOUR problem.
I understand. But I would have had the panels removed and the roof repaired satisfactorily before taking title. Now the Seller is pretty much off the hook.
Not necessarily; it depends on the contract. If the contract is just between the seller and the company, and doesn't convey with the property, then it's the same as personal debt; I assume no one here would agree that the buyers should pay off someone's personal debt in order to close on the home?
Just because the panels are affixed to the property does not mean that the new owners have responsibility for them; there is no contract between the solar panel company and the new owners, so there's no legal avenue to pursue any action against them: they're not the ones in default, the previous owner is.
Seller is definitely NOT off the hook since everything is in their name; if damages occur during the process of removal, or buyers are harmed financially due to dunning of their credit score (which, by the way, would be patently illegal and a clear violation of every credit protection act that currently exists), the new owners have clear recourse to go after the previous owner due to their lack of disclosure of a material fact.
You signed and closed on the home, knowing about this situation. It's definitely now YOUR problem.
Again, not true; just because the property has exchanged hands does not mean that previous owner has no legal responsibility still for issues with the house. NJ law provides for the ability to sue a prior owner for any omissions or fraudulent misrepresentations they have made during the sale process.
Not necessarily; it depends on the contract. If the contract is just between the seller and the company, and doesn't convey with the property, then it's the same as personal debt; I assume no one here would agree that the buyers should pay off someone's personal debt in order to close on the home?
Just because the panels are affixed to the property does not mean that the new owners have responsibility for them; there is no contract between the solar panel company and the new owners, so there's no legal avenue to pursue any action against them: they're not the ones in default, the previous owner is.
Seller is definitely NOT off the hook since everything is in their name; if damages occur during the process of removal, or buyers are harmed financially due to dunning of their credit score (which, by the way, would be patently illegal and a clear violation of every credit protection act that currently exists), the new owners have clear recourse to go after the previous owner due to their lack of disclosure of a material fact.
I wasn't referring to the contract between the Seller and the solar company--I was referring to the potential costs to repair the roof. Unless the Seller paid into an escrow account to cover such a situation, good luck trying to get money out of the Seller. Perhaps the solar company will pay for any needed repairs or replacement...but I wouldn't have put all of my eggs into that one basket. I would have made sure to keep the Seller on the hook until this was satisfactorily resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berniekosar19
Again, not true; just because the property has exchanged hands does not mean that previous owner has no legal responsibility still for issues with the house. NJ law provides for the ability to sue a prior owner for any omissions or fraudulent misrepresentations they have made during the sale process.
This was obviously fully disclosed before they closed. I don't see any possible claim for "omissions" or "fraudulent misrepresentations".
I wasn't referring to the contract between the Seller and the solar company--I was referring to the potential costs to repair the roof. Unless the Seller paid into an escrow account to cover such a situation, good luck trying to get money out of the Seller. Perhaps the solar company will pay for any needed repairs or replacement...but I wouldn't have put all of my eggs into that one basket. I would have made sure to keep the Seller on the hook until this was satisfactorily resolved.
This was obviously fully disclosed before they closed. I don't see any possible claim for "omissions" or "fraudulent misrepresentations".
I'm not going to rehash everything that was in the prior thread but, looking at everything the OP stated regarding that disclosure (and I know it's just one side of things), OP actually would have a decent case.
In any event, the main issue is that the lease for the panels is between the prior owner and the company, and specifically states in said contract that lease does NOT convey with the property. The company has no legal recourse to take any punitive action against OP as there is no binding contract between the two parties; and OP certainly has the right to refuse to sign a waiver giving up their rights to go after the company for restitution if they damage their roof removing the panels.
I'm not going to rehash everything that was in the prior thread but, looking at everything the OP stated regarding that disclosure (and I know it's just one side of things), OP actually would have a decent case.
Granted, the initial failure of the Seller to disclose was significant, but the full circumstances were known by the time the closing took place. So...the initial non-disclosure is pretty much a non-issue at this point. It will be interesting to hear how this turns out.
Granted, the initial failure of the Seller to disclose was significant, but the full circumstances were known by the time the closing took place. So...the initial non-disclosure is pretty much a non-issue at this point. It will be interesting to hear how this turns out.
Eh, we'll agree to disagree then; disclosing only a couple of days prior to closing, and also considering that on the actual written disclosure form seller signed off on there is NO mention regarding the lease for the panels or that the panels are not the actual property of the owner, does not constitute adequate and full disclosure, at least by NJ legal standards. NJ law has a lot of precedent for this sort of stuff; might be different in Michigan. A judge definitely could presume a willful misrepresentation by the seller, if the facts presented by the OP are borne out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
