Page 1 says the lease is 9 pages long. An attorney needs to read it. I would also be concerned with how many holes will be in your roof it they are forced to rip it out.
Cancelling a Leased Solar Panel System
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
I've heard insurance companies are not 'happy' with these things.
Originally Posted by cjcride
I've heard insurance companies are not 'happy' with these things.
If you live in a HOA community, check with your HOA, as some prohibit solar panels.
I've heard insurance companies are not 'happy' with these things.
If you live in a HOA community, check with your HOA, as some prohibit solar panels.
I have heard that leasing panels is a bad idea. My boss bought and installed his own last year to stay out of the leasing game. BTW your neighbors are too close!
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Wow. I think you're stuck with the system. As others stated if you negotiated it out of the asking price of the house live with it, but I'd still try to get out of it. I'm not sure if I'd be thrilled with a patched up roof on a nice house like that when the system gets removed. If that's how they do it in CA.
Pigs would fly before I ever put a $34K solar system on my house. Maybe that's how us old timers think though. LOL
Yep. I agree with you 100000%
But this is California with lots of tree huggers going 'green' and installing this junk on their roof.
Wow. I think you're stuck with the system. As others stated if you negotiated it out of the asking price of the house live with it, but I'd still try to get out of it. I'm not sure if I'd be thrilled with a patched up roof on a nice house like that when the system gets removed. If that's how they do it in CA.
Pigs would fly before I ever put a $34K solar system on my house. Maybe that's how us old timers think though. LOL
Yep. I agree with you 100000%
But this is California with lots of tree huggers going 'green' and installing this junk on their roof.
People, the OP does not have to get out of anything.
He does not have a lease and never entered into a lease.
Its that simple.
AS far as CA people, solar panels are 300 more times toxic to the environment then nuclear power.
But go figure most people are clueless.
click
and here too
or just do your own research
He does not have a lease and never entered into a lease.
Its that simple.
AS far as CA people, solar panels are 300 more times toxic to the environment then nuclear power.
But go figure most people are clueless.
click
and here too
or just do your own research
Last edited:
Call the solar company. I think you are in a tight spot.
Solar companies know people sell houses.
I THINK the lease is tied to the house, not the purchaser.
Leases are for people who cannot bear the purchase cost; it is not nearly as cost beneficial as compared to a purchase.
The cost of solar in CA continues to go down. I paid $17K less the tax credit earlier this year for a 5.x kWh system.
This was excellent at the time; prices are even better now.
I pay about $15 per month to be on the PGE grid. I love my solar.
Good luck Michael; I hope you are not stuck.
Solar companies know people sell houses.
I THINK the lease is tied to the house, not the purchaser.
Leases are for people who cannot bear the purchase cost; it is not nearly as cost beneficial as compared to a purchase.
The cost of solar in CA continues to go down. I paid $17K less the tax credit earlier this year for a 5.x kWh system.
This was excellent at the time; prices are even better now.
I pay about $15 per month to be on the PGE grid. I love my solar.
Good luck Michael; I hope you are not stuck.
The first sentence of the contract says it's an agreement "between you and SolarCity."
Does it define anywhere else what "you" is? Is "you" defined as anyone who owns this house/property? If so, then you're on the hook. If 'you' is just whoever signed on the dotted line, then you may be off the hook.
Does it define anywhere else what "you" is? Is "you" defined as anyone who owns this house/property? If so, then you're on the hook. If 'you' is just whoever signed on the dotted line, then you may be off the hook.
1st of all you are not the one that has to break the lease, the current owner is, unless the lease takeover is a condition of sale. If it is and you want to proceed than you have to see it the contract the owner signed allows for a lease cancellation or redemption.
I wonder if this is similar to the water heater rental thing in Ontario. Basically, when you buy a house where the previous owner rented a water heater and you made even one payment on that water heater, you assumed the contract. But if you never made any payments on that heater, the company had no legal leg to stand on and would have to take the heater back an no cost to you.
Wonder if something similar is going on with the panels. I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
So my question is, has Micheal made any lease payments on those panels?
Wonder if something similar is going on with the panels. I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
So my question is, has Micheal made any lease payments on those panels?
Last edited:
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
It's possible the solar system lease is tied to the title of the house, like described in this article, although this is from a different solar company:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=424259155041676
I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
It's possible the solar system lease is tied to the title of the house, like described in this article, although this is from a different solar company:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=424259155041676
I'm up now, so here is a quick analysis using your power bill.
If I interpret you numbers correctly over the course of the month you produced 1143.3 kwhrs of power. Your house consumed 818 kwhrs which made the difference, 327 kwhrs available to sell to the power company.
The next step is more complicated. We have no data on which panels are the rental ones plus you have panels facing north, south, east and west. The south facing panels are the most prolific.
I'll simplify it by assuming it all averages out. Your total capacity is 7.8 plus 3.87 for a total of 11.67. Kw. The rental panels are 33% of the present system. If you get rid of the rental panels you'll only produce 743 kwhrs and you'll have to purchase an additional 62 kwhrs every month at an average of 0.30 per kwhr, possibly more. That will cost you $18.60 per month. Plus you'll no longer get the credit for the 327 kwhr that you are currently selling to the power company which is worth 327 x .30 = $98.You'll be out $116 per month. While this is less than $150 per month, your prize is only $34 per month. For this you'll get holes in your roof and a possible decommissioning charge and a smaller house value. I'd keep those panels.
If I interpret you numbers correctly over the course of the month you produced 1143.3 kwhrs of power. Your house consumed 818 kwhrs which made the difference, 327 kwhrs available to sell to the power company.
The next step is more complicated. We have no data on which panels are the rental ones plus you have panels facing north, south, east and west. The south facing panels are the most prolific.
I'll simplify it by assuming it all averages out. Your total capacity is 7.8 plus 3.87 for a total of 11.67. Kw. The rental panels are 33% of the present system. If you get rid of the rental panels you'll only produce 743 kwhrs and you'll have to purchase an additional 62 kwhrs every month at an average of 0.30 per kwhr, possibly more. That will cost you $18.60 per month. Plus you'll no longer get the credit for the 327 kwhr that you are currently selling to the power company which is worth 327 x .30 = $98.You'll be out $116 per month. While this is less than $150 per month, your prize is only $34 per month. For this you'll get holes in your roof and a possible decommissioning charge and a smaller house value. I'd keep those panels.
Last edited:
Only a LAWYER in the area can answer this question.
Me personally, I would try to find a way out of that lease. Maybe negotiate a lower up front payment to the solar company to do away with the lease, with a very real threat to throw the stuff in the dumpster if they didn't negotiate. But of course, Im not a lawyer, and a lawyer can tell you what needs to be done.
Me personally, I would try to find a way out of that lease. Maybe negotiate a lower up front payment to the solar company to do away with the lease, with a very real threat to throw the stuff in the dumpster if they didn't negotiate. But of course, Im not a lawyer, and a lawyer can tell you what needs to be done.
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
It's possible the solar system lease is tied to the title of the house, like described in this article, although this is from a different solar company:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=424259155041676
The only way it is tied to the title is by a lien. As the first article you linked says, the new buyers got the estate to buy out the panels and then the solar company removed them. The lien alone will not bind the new buyers to the solar contract, but it will make it impossible for them to sell it later on.
But you have to do all this work upfront. If you bought the house without sorting out the panels first, I have a feeling you also signed a paper assuming the lease. Many simply dont realize it since there are so many things to sign.
Like I said earlier, it doesn't look like the lease take over is some sort of an automatic thing when you buy the house.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
It's possible the solar system lease is tied to the title of the house, like described in this article, although this is from a different solar company:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=424259155041676
The only way it is tied to the title is by a lien. As the first article you linked says, the new buyers got the estate to buy out the panels and then the solar company removed them. The lien alone will not bind the new buyers to the solar contract, but it will make it impossible for them to sell it later on.
But you have to do all this work upfront. If you bought the house without sorting out the panels first, I have a feeling you also signed a paper assuming the lease. Many simply dont realize it since there are so many things to sign.
Like I said earlier, it doesn't look like the lease take over is some sort of an automatic thing when you buy the house.
Basically we need to see the rest of the lease. When you purchase a home and there is a tenant their lease is still in force even though you didn't sign it. You need an attorney familiar with state laws to render an opinion, but i don't think there's an easy way out otherwise people could just sell to a family member to get out of it.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I wonder if this is similar to the water heater rental thing in Ontario. Basically, when you buy a house where the previous owner rented a water heater and you made even one payment on that water heater, you assumed the contract. But if you never made any payments on that heater, the company had no legal leg to stand on and would have to take the heater back an no cost to you.
Wonder if something similar is going on with the panels. I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
So my question is, has Micheal made any lease payments on those panels?
Why would someone rent a water heater?!
I wonder if this is similar to the water heater rental thing in Ontario. Basically, when you buy a house where the previous owner rented a water heater and you made even one payment on that water heater, you assumed the contract. But if you never made any payments on that heater, the company had no legal leg to stand on and would have to take the heater back an no cost to you.
Wonder if something similar is going on with the panels. I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
So my question is, has Micheal made any lease payments on those panels?
Why would someone rent a water heater?!
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
It's possible the solar system lease is tied to the title of the house, like described in this article, although this is from a different solar company:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=424259155041676
This article is a little off. There's no lien against the real estate. The lien (UCC) is against the solar equipment itself because it's leased.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I can't imagine a contract being tied to the property, as property is not an entity and you cannot go into a contract with a property.
It's possible the solar system lease is tied to the title of the house, like described in this article, although this is from a different solar company:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=424259155041676
This article is a little off. There's no lien against the real estate. The lien (UCC) is against the solar equipment itself because it's leased.
Your real estate agent should be able to tell you your options.
Originally Posted by Miller88
Why would someone rent a water heater?!
The allure to many, it seems, is that if anything bad happens, the renting company will fix it or replace it for free.
This scheme is so popular in Ontario that pretty much all new development houses are built with one.
There is no contract with the new owner, but instead a clause on each monthly bill that by paying the bill you agree to terms and conditions. And the terms are that to get out you have to buy out the tank,at a highly inflated price, or they can take it back, but will charge you very high removal fees that will make it not cost effective.
And if you paid even one rental bill, you are bound by these terms. So the trick is to never pay that bill and immediately call them to take the tank away.
Of course they will tell you that you are bound by a contract with them, but unless you signed one, ask them to provide you a copy. If they can't you can legally remove their tank and leave it for their pickup.
How do I know this? Because I bought a house with one and started paying the rental. Because there are so many other things to take care of, I figured I will take care of it later on. Later on, they wanted $2500 to buy out a less than $1k tank, or around $700 in pickup fees if I wanted it removed.
Had I done my research earlier and not paid a dime to them, they would have to remove their tank for free.
The solar panels seem to follow a similar pattern, praying on people lack of knowledge and outright misinformation. And once the house is bought, chances are the lease was signed over as well in the process.
The difference here is that we're talking tens of thousands of dollars, liens and lease agreements not $1k worth of water heater.
Why would someone rent a water heater?!
The allure to many, it seems, is that if anything bad happens, the renting company will fix it or replace it for free.
This scheme is so popular in Ontario that pretty much all new development houses are built with one.
There is no contract with the new owner, but instead a clause on each monthly bill that by paying the bill you agree to terms and conditions. And the terms are that to get out you have to buy out the tank,at a highly inflated price, or they can take it back, but will charge you very high removal fees that will make it not cost effective.
And if you paid even one rental bill, you are bound by these terms. So the trick is to never pay that bill and immediately call them to take the tank away.
Of course they will tell you that you are bound by a contract with them, but unless you signed one, ask them to provide you a copy. If they can't you can legally remove their tank and leave it for their pickup.
How do I know this? Because I bought a house with one and started paying the rental. Because there are so many other things to take care of, I figured I will take care of it later on. Later on, they wanted $2500 to buy out a less than $1k tank, or around $700 in pickup fees if I wanted it removed.
Had I done my research earlier and not paid a dime to them, they would have to remove their tank for free.
The solar panels seem to follow a similar pattern, praying on people lack of knowledge and outright misinformation. And once the house is bought, chances are the lease was signed over as well in the process.
The difference here is that we're talking tens of thousands of dollars, liens and lease agreements not $1k worth of water heater.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
