Would you buy the seller's solar lease? (feedback, new agent, fees)

[L00k4ward]

Originally Posted by JONOV

eh...Don't lose focus on the forest because of a single crooked tree.

The seller is trying to squeeze...not wanting to pay the lease. Buyer is agitated about it.

But really, "No, I'm not assuming the lease." Seller is presumably under contract to deliver a house with a clear title. No need to draw it out any further than that. Come to the closing table on a house, with or without the panels, but certainly without a lease for me to assume or a lien on the house that needs clearing.

And meanwhile the OP is in limbo instead of searching for another- better house without any headaches?
Depending where the house is- there could be eventually dismantling and disposing fees

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by Maddie104

I stated the realtors may bear some culpability. Most importantly, the question is who bears the burden of "full disclosure." The seller had knowledge that the loan would need to be assumed and the listing agent should have known, so why wasn't such a material matter disclosed? I am not a lawyer but I do not believe the disclosure burden was met.

They disclosed that there was a lease. My understanding (and this will vary from place-to-place) that the disclosure was made sufficiently. If the disclosure was that there is a hole in the roof do you expect the disclosure to include:

-How to fix it
-The cost to fix it
-If any mold formed because water got in

If you just say "there's a hole in the roof" then you've satisfied the requirement of disclosure. This being said you'll be a lot more successful trying to sell the house (a/k/a fulfilling your fiduciary duty to your client) if you include additional detail.

Originally Posted by Maddie104

Then the practical question is do the realtors want this deal of $100,000 over list to fall apart over this? It has already been on the market for three months I believe.

It seems to me the OP should consider these questions before she decides the best course of action.

True, but . . .

A) They had multiple offers and that's can often embolden a seller (right or wrong)
B) I'm sure the agents along with both buyer & seller are making efforts to keep this together evidenced by the fact that OP is only being asked to pay $8K and not the full lease buyout
C) Agents will sometimes use their commission to keep a deal together but that's a decision that's up to the agent and their broker and contrary to popular belief the commission is not a bottomless pile of cash and the agents and everyone involved in helping make this sale happen do deserve to be paid and to make a profit

Originally Posted by TheLonelyGoatherd

Mike that is true, that we were ignorant as buyers. Now we know. I took the 3 day crash course on these solar leases and now we know. But we knew nothing of solar and lease vs own when we looked at the house.

The disclosure says "Solar panel lease installed in 2013 from ASD direct" and that's it

I'm not trying to beat you up and I apologize if you thought I was kicking you when you were down. This is a HUGE purchase for you I'm sure and in the future it will go smoother if you ask questions about anything you see that you don't 100% understand. Personally, I see you as the victim here. I just think you could have helped yourself out up front by asking questions. Your agent who's a professional and whose job it is to protect you is much more at fault IMO. They should have seen this disclosure, known that there was a lot of pertinent information that you should have in order to make an informed decision about buying this house, and they should have gotten it for you prior to you making an offer.

Originally Posted by TheLonelyGoatherd

So I feel like at the very least, my agent should have said "Hey let's look into this lease. I know there are some not so good deals out there with solar" And one could say that maybe my agent who's been doing this 20 years has never come across this, but in the beginning she told us she has. She said she's sold homes with these panels and made like it's no big deal.

So unfortunately the words solar lease didn't raise any flags for us because we knew nothing about them. But boy do I know now!

Agreed! Any agent worth their license should know about solar leases. You don't come across them every day but as solar panels on homes become more and more common it's important to know about the benefits and pitfalls of buying a home with panels on it.

At the end of the day, if you can get the house for a reasonable price that includes the value of the panels then everything should be fine.

Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman

OP- They do provide clean energy and save on the utility bill. If you can get out only paying the 8k, would the utility savings make it worthwhile to proceed? If over the next couple of years they paid for themselves, it wouldn't be bad.

SPs can be a really great investment. Depending on the state you can get some great tax credits and depending on utility costs in the area you can save a lot of money.

Originally Posted by TheLonelyGoatherd

We are standing firm on not paying for the lease. This house needs work inside and out. I don't care if the solar stays with the house. This is no different than telling a buyer that you put your bathroom remodel on your high interest credit card so since they benefit from the remodel, they should help you pay the card. Nope.

It's a little different in that we're talking about a lease so they don't own the panels. In your example, they own the bathroom but took out debt to finance it.

Regardless, this whole situation could have been diffused either with a more robust disclosure up front or if the buyer's side had done more investigation on the lease before putting in an offer. I also think the listing should have been more clear about the seller's expectations regarding the lease. If they wanted the buyer to assume the lease then the listing should have said that.

[dontaskwhy]

The issue as I see it is that the solar lease was vaguely described in the listing, but the known, monthly cost was not disclosed clearly. I am glad for the OP that they did ask for clarification before the actual closing. I don't know if the seller had a legal responsibility, but I am not an attorney. I leave that to the attorneys to interpret and how to advise their client. Of course the process can differ from state to state and there is no question about that.

I do agree that the listing agent should have been more clear in the listing from the start. My opinion and $1.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Denny's, take it for what it's worth.

[JONOV]

Originally Posted by L00k4ward

And meanwhile the OP is in limbo instead of searching for another- better house without any headaches?
Depending where the house is- there could be eventually dismantling and disposing fees

So what? It isn't as if the seller has OP over a barrel. Seller needs OP to sign on the dotted line, or else he's potentially lost just as much opportunity to sell his house.

It's common to find issues that require a meeting of the minds between two parties in the sale of a house. It's almost as common for there to be some indignation, resentment, anger, etc.

[Maddie104]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

They disclosed that there was a lease. My understanding (and this will vary from place-to-place) that the disclosure was made sufficiently. If the disclosure was that there is a hole in the roof do you expect the disclosure to include:

-How to fix it
-The cost to fix it
-If any mold formed because water got in

If you just say "there's a hole in the roof" then you've satisfied the requirement of disclosure. This being said you'll be a lot more successful trying to sell the house (a/k/a fulfilling your fiduciary duty to your client) if you include additional detail.



True, but . . .

A) They had multiple offers and that's can often embolden a seller (right or wrong)
B) I'm sure the agents along with both buyer & seller are making efforts to keep this together evidenced by the fact that OP is only being asked to pay $8K and not the full lease buyout
C) Agents will sometimes use their commission to keep a deal together but that's a decision that's up to the agent and their broker and contrary to popular belief the commission is not a bottomless pile of cash and the agents and everyone involved in helping make this sale happen do deserve to be paid and to make a profit



I'm not trying to beat you up and I apologize if you thought I was kicking you when you were down. This is a HUGE purchase for you I'm sure and in the future it will go smoother if you ask questions about anything you see that you don't 100% understand. Personally, I see you as the victim here. I just think you could have helped yourself out up front by asking questions. Your agent who's a professional and whose job it is to protect you is much more at fault IMO. They should have seen this disclosure, known that there was a lot of pertinent information that you should have in order to make an informed decision about buying this house, and they should have gotten it for you prior to you making an offer.



Agreed! Any agent worth their license should know about solar leases. You don't come across them every day but as solar panels on homes become more and more common it's important to know about the benefits and pitfalls of buying a home with panels on it.

At the end of the day, if you can get the house for a reasonable price that includes the value of the panels then everything should be fine.



SPs can be a really great investment. Depending on the state you can get some great tax credits and depending on utility costs in the area you can save a lot of money.



It's a little different in that we're talking about a lease so they don't own the panels. In your example, they own the bathroom but took out debt to finance it.

Regardless, this whole situation could have been diffused either with a more robust disclosure up front or if the buyer's side had done more investigation on the lease before putting in an offer. I also think the listing should have been more clear about the seller's expectations regarding the lease. If they wanted the buyer to assume the lease then the listing should have said that.

I have to disagree that a hole in the roof is a comparable analogy. If there is a disclosure about the hole in the roof, you are free to repair it or replace it or leave the hole in the roof as you see fit. You are not assuming anyone's loan or told you must pay $xx to the seller. You are not financially obligated to do anything. I believe the disclosure stated the panels were leased. It does not state that the seller must assume the loan and the amount of the loan balance or any other amount must be paid to the seller.

I fail to understand why you continue to put some of the burden on the OP (if that's who you mean by buyer's side). Yes, many situations could be diffused if a lay person investigates further but that doesn't relieve agents of their burden of disclosure per CA law. To use your analogy, a buyer could hire someone to check out the roof and diffuse a failure to disclose a hole.

If the seller did have multiple offers (not sure this is factual) and the realtor couldn't close the deal, sometimes that says something about the realtor.

Lastly, a mistake has consequences. If the realtor(s) did fail in their duty to the OP, it might be a costly mistake.

[LordSquidworth]

Meh. Comes down to if you think they'll get a better deal.

I personally wouldn't pay for the panels.

- you offered $100k over asking; they can pay it off

- the panels aren't worth the lease amount and it's a defunct company. why couldn't the sellers negotiate to pay it off for pennies on the dollar prior to selling?

[TheLonelyGoatherd]

I'll add some more info here. The house hit the market in may and has never been under contract until us. On the day we went for our showing, the listing agent said he had another offer.
That caused us to raise our offer to 100k over asking. We later regretted that. Because 24 hours later we never got an answer if they accepted our offer. And then finally our agent said they accepted right when the offer was going to expire. She said the seller's agent had a friend who said they wanted to buy the house but apparently they couldn't get their price up. So we felt duped. The seller's friend couldn't get his price to the asking price. And here we offered 100k over that. Really we could have offered asking price and STILL got our offer accepted. But anyway..... lesson learned about not giving in to pressure. Had this been the first weekend on the market then I wouldn't regret going over. But really sitting for 3 months? We should have tried to offer even a little below asking.

Anyway, with regards to having asked about the lease, when you don't know you don't know. I knew nothing of solar lease agreements before Monday. Nothing. And ALL they said to us was a quick "The house has a solar lease" but then we moved on during the showing. In the disclosure form all it said was "solar lease " and then the payment of $161 per month. So we really thought we just had to pay 161 a month. I asked how long the lease was for and seller's agent said they didn't know. Had to get back to us.

It wasn't until 2 weeks into the closing, this past monday that all this comes out. I went to do what I thought was setting up my account with the solar company only to find they are out of business. I call my agent and she tells me that the lease has 12 years to go and there is anywhere from 23k -30k still owed. (We STILL don't know the final amount) She tells me the seller doesn't want to pay any of the balance of the lease. So that's when I went into overdrive reading and learning all about these shady deals and the companies that went under.

So really, it's not like I knew anything about these solar leases and just turned a blind eye. But now that I know, I don't see how in the world the agents could let it get this far. I've read that many of these deals fall apart on closing day because the solar lease is separate from the house at closing.

Also nobody answered, but I got the impression reading that it's actually illegal to go so far as to accept an offer and then make the sale of the house contingent on the buyer either assuming the lease or helping contribute money toward it. The sale of the house is a separate entity. We made an offer on the house. It was accepted. We told them they can take the solar with them. Their contract that we finally received yesterday actually says the seller can take the panels to a new house, gift them, or get someone else to assume the lease. These panels do NOT have to stay on this house. So there is nothing shady on our end. We thought we were buying a house and now this lease deal gets thrown in.

And if we contribute to the buyout of the lease, we have to treat the money as a gift to the seller! It requires its own form.
We are standing firm that we want the house, we are asking for no money back for anything that they found during inspection ( 20 year old a/c and hot water and multiple windows that need to be replaced ) We are being really fair. To ask for MORE money for this lease is going to kill this deal for us. Because we are already mentally heading that way. We are giving them until this weekend to respond to our counter offer. They were going to give 5k credit back toward getting a new a/c and hot water. We are waiving that credit. I think we've given enough on our end.

[Sherifftruman]

What maintenance are they recommending? We have a 7.6kw solar panel system (that we paid for because leases are definitely bad deals and scams) and the company has never mentioned anything about maintenance being needed. Sounds like just another part of the scam to me.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by Maddie104

I have to disagree that a hole in the roof is a comparable analogy. If there is a disclosure about the hole in the roof, you are free to repair it or replace it or leave the hole in the roof as you see fit. You are not assuming anyone's loan or told you must pay $xx to the seller. You are not financially obligated to do anything. I believe the disclosure stated the panels were leased. It does not state that the seller must assume the loan and the amount of the loan balance or any other amount must be paid to the seller.

I have not seen the lease and I have no idea what options there are. Perhaps, the seller could uninstall them and have them installed at their new home? No one can force you to assume someone else's lease. Also, as we're seeing here the OP is negotiating for the seller to pay off the lease. So, it sounds like they will not be assuming it at all. Much like my "hole in the roof" example there are options and choices to be made. So, I'm not sure how it's a remarkably different situation.

Regardless, my point is that disclosure is disclosure. If you tell someone there's a defect or a lease then you've disclosed. I've never had anyone tell me there's a level of detail required for disclosure.

Originally Posted by Maddie104

I fail to understand why you continue to put some of the burden on the OP (if that's who you mean by buyer's side). Yes, many situations could be diffused if a lay person investigates further but that doesn't relieve agents of their burden of disclosure per CA law. To use your analogy, a buyer could hire someone to check out the roof and diffuse a failure to disclose a hole.

I place some level of blame on the OP because they received a disclosure and failed to investigate how that disclosure would impact their purchase.

Let's take the hole in the roof analogy a bit further . . . if a seller disclosed to you "there's a hole in the roof" would you just say "OK!" and move on? NO! You would have a contractor look at it and get an idea of the scope of the damage and the cost of the repair. This is no different. A disclosure was made and the buyer failed to investigate how that disclosure would affect them. I can understand the OP's statement that they didn't think it was an issue but their agent should have known enough to ask questions. The state I operate in is "Buyer Beware" so buyers shoulder some responsibility for doing their own investigations/research.

If the buyer asked their agent about the disclosure and their agent said "it's nothing" then they did what they were supposed to do and their agent failed. If they looked at the disclosure and just said "oh that's interesting" and moved on with their life then they bear some responsibility for the situation that resulted.

Originally Posted by Maddie104

If the seller did have multiple offers (not sure this is factual) and the realtor couldn't close the deal, sometimes that says something about the realtor.

I don't follow.

Originally Posted by Maddie104

Lastly, a mistake has consequences. If the realtor(s) did fail in their duty to the OP, it might be a costly mistake.

Agreed. To me, it seems the most egregious fumble was by the OP's agent. Disclosure was made and they failed to inform their client of the possible implications of the disclosure and they did not encourage their client to investigate the disclosure at all either.

Originally Posted by TheLonelyGoatherd

That caused us to raise our offer to 100k over asking. We later regretted that. Because 24 hours later we never got an answer if they accepted our offer. And then finally our agent said they accepted right when the offer was going to expire. She said the seller's agent had a friend who said they wanted to buy the house but apparently they couldn't get their price up. So we felt duped. The seller's friend couldn't get his price to the asking price. And here we offered 100k over that. Really we could have offered asking price and STILL got our offer accepted. But anyway..... lesson learned about not giving in to pressure. Had this been the first weekend on the market then I wouldn't regret going over. But really sitting for 3 months? We should have tried to offer even a little below asking.

It's SO hard to know what to do in a multiple offer situation. I'm not sure how you managed to get that background info on the other offer but if you hadn't you'd probably be totally happy with the price you were paying.

Meanwhile, I would stick to my guns about not paying a penny for the panels. If you're paying $100K over asking and no one else offered anywhere near that then the seller will still come out ahead even if they pay off the lease.

[TheLonelyGoatherd]

Originally Posted by Sherifftruman

What maintenance are they recommending? We have a 7.6kw solar panel system (that we paid for because leases are definitely bad deals and scams) and the company has never mentioned anything about maintenance being needed. Sounds like just another part of the scam to me.

Scroll to the middle of the page. You'll see the list of how to maintain the panels. We were told we should have someone come out twice a year. I was surprised too.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/repairs

I place some level of blame on the OP because they received a disclosure and failed to investigate how that disclosure would impact their purchase.

Shocker that a realtor doesn't see the blame from the agent's side. Isn't this what agents always claim when people ask what exactly do you get paid for? "Oh we look out for our clients"

Why in the world would I think that there was some kind of a lease on solar? I know nothing about solar. I'm from the east coat. Solar just isn't a thing there. And even here, I've been looking at homes a lot lately and I'd say 90% of the home in our area don't have solar panels. And after two years of house hunting this is the first house that we've seen have panels.

There was no mention of them in the listing description. You only see the panels in ONE photo in the listing. Zero mention of the lease until AFTER our offer was accepted. It wasn't until the inspection that we asked what the deal was and the agent said there's a lease but honestly made it sound like the lease was from the electric company. He made NO mention of this company who lease the panels and that they were out of business and that the lease was with a debt collector.

I asked our agent why she didn't warn us and she says that she's never dealt with a sale like this. She's only sold very few homes with solar panels and they all just came with the house. She's never had a buyer of hers be asked to pay separately for panels or take over a lease. So if my agent who does this for a living didn't know to ask, how in the heck should my husband and I have known? NOW we know. And now you better believe if this falls through it will be the first thing I ask if I see a listing with panels. I'll be asking before I even set up a showing.

the disclosure we received after inspection and it says verbatim "leased solar panels installed 8 years ago"

This is on a disclosure page that is chock FULL of other things we had to look at. So no that line didn't set off red flags for me. The flags went off when I asked for the name of the company and went to call only to find out they were out of business. Then as I was waiting for the correct number I started reading about the shams and the debt tied to these leases. And then I thought, "Surely this agent wouldn't be trying to close this house without disclosing the debt right? I mean he likes having his license right?"

Even when my agent gave me the phone number of the solar company she said I had to "set up an account with them" So to me that sounded like what you do when setting up electric in a house. You don't pay the previous owner's bill, right? You set up a new account.
There was no mention that I actually would have had to apply for the lease and get accepted. Apparently it's in the contract that they don't guarantee they will accept a transfer! All of this I found out later on. You don't see any of this as shady from the seller's side?

You don't think it's shady to mention that they want us to pay an extra 20-30k two weeks AFTER our offer is accepted? They accepted our offer on August 17th. We find out we are supposed to pay this debt on August 30th. You see nothing wrong with that?

The whole thing is an artichoke with layers. Finding out there is a balance but seller's agent says "he's not sure how much" First he said he thought 30k, then he said he thinks 23k. We still don't have an exact number. So come on, man. Don't try to hoist this on me the buyer like I'm just the stupid one and the buyers and seller's agents are in the clear.

And then you wonder why so many people hate realtors and don't trust them? Yes it's all my fault for not seeing solar panels and asking a million questions immediately.