X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by emartin00 View Post

    This is an excellent point.
    While Tesla has an extensive legal team, and the money to fight you, what do they gain from doing it? The value of the panels is not worth them going to court. And if they were to lose, they would lose a huge bargaining chip for any future cases.
    They are banking on you coming to the table and offering to assume the contract.
    I'm out of my knowledge base here for the most part, and while agreeing with Peakbagger on Tesla's dilemma, I wonder if that dilemma has more aspects.

    If I was Tesla or their ambulance chasers, part of the hard thinking I'd be doing might include a look at the lease revenue and its potential loss by not challenging situations like Beans31 has and so setting a precedent.

    By vacating the lease, Tesla may be putting all their current lease revenue into some jeopardy, particularly when/as the lease trap becomes more commonly known in the future and home buyers of homes w/ PV leases simply refuse to accept the B.S. leases.

    That might be a situation that Tesla may find worthy of some investment of time and resources, and so part of the hard thinking with respect to alternatives or ways forward, not all of which will work out well for home buyers.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

      ............

      By vacating the lease, Tesla may be putting all their current lease revenue into some jeopardy, particularly when/as the lease trap becomes more commonly known in the future and home buyers of homes w/ PV leases simply refuse to accept the B.S. leases.

      .........
      This is hardly a case of voluntarily vacating a lease. Tesla's interest was foreclosed, involuntarily. Tesla did not have a choice in the matter except they could have cured the default in the original mortgage. They chose not to do that either because they didn't know or the financial burden and risk was greater than the value of their investment/

      The lease is with the former owner, who apparently lost the home in foreclosure. The important facts are that the security interest (UCC filing) of Tesla/Sloar City may have been wiped out by the foreclosure. The poster has title insurance and the operative issue is whether the title compny will defend their opinion about "clear title". There is a very small chance that the title policy contains an exclusion for personal property. The worse case is that Tesla/Solar City may have the right to remove the panels.

      The only thing that might influence future Tesla/Solar City policy is that when a lease becomes delinquent, they may wish to do something to avoid their security interest being wiped out by a foreclosure. That is beyond the scope of this thread.
      Last edited by Ampster; 04-27-2019, 06:37 PM.
      9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

      Comment


      • #33
        I have to wonder what kind of financial sense it would make for Tesla to pay installers to remove the system. What would a used system be worth to them?

        Comment


        • #34
          Also not a lawyer. But possession is 9/10 of the law and Tesla has no legal claim against you directly -- previous owner, yes. bank, yes. title company, yes. Nor can they trespass on your property to remove items that may or may not be their property (without a court order and a police / court official escort).

          That said, at the present moment, are the panels benefiting you in any way? Who are your purchasing power from? Your local PoCo? Do you have a bi-directional meter? Is the current PV production offsetting your consumption? Are you earning SREC's? I have no idea about the details of the previous homeowners lease / PPA. But if they were financing / renting the panels through a power purchase agreement from Tesla, I'm not sure what impact (if any) this would have on the "normal" grid-tied Net-Metering setup that folks who own their systems would have.

          It may be in your best interest to have your lawyer draft a proposal suggesting that Tesla remove their equipment and pay you reasonable and customer expenses for the replacement of your roof which was damaged / degraded by their installation.

          -Jonathan

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by J.P.M.

            As I wrote, I'm mostly out of my knowledge base here, and unless others here are lawyers proficient in such things matters, so are all the other posters to this thread - including you.
            Attacking the person instead ot the argument? I worked for a bank for 11 years and ran a foreclosure department. On my own account I have participated in over 50 real estate transactions all of which carried title insurance.

            So, from my ignorant perspective, I would seem to me that if Tesla is the valid lessor, and if they do not pursue legal remedies as stipulated in that lease, then as one not versed in the ins/outs of such things, but still possessing some common sense, call it what you will, I'd say it looks to me that in that case, Tesla would have walked away.
            Valid lessor? Then who would be the valid lessee, the former owner? How is the lease relevant to the current owner? My opinion is that the security instrument (UCC filing) may or may not be effective anymore and that is the document that is important. I stated that in an earlier post.What about that do you not understand?

            BTW, have you even seen, much less read a SolarCity/Tesla lease ? If you're going to mouth off like you know something about it, I'd suggest you get informed before bloviate and possibly mislead someone reading your stuff. Otherwise, your opinion is no more valid than mine or anyone else's as posted here so far.
            Yes, I read the lease that was on the home that my daughter and her husband purchased 15 months ago in California. I also read the title report that showed the UCC filing. That lease contained a provision for the Lessee to have the system moved to another structure and I encouraged my daughter and son in law to insist that the seller do that. That was their dream house and they didn't want to rock the boat. I am working with them now to see about exercising the option to purchase the system when that opportunity comes around in another year and a half. It will all depend on the market value that is quoted at that time. The other option would be to prepay the system. However the lease is not relevant to the operative issue in this thread.
            I have several copies of SolarCity/Tesla leases. They have not changed much in the 11 or so years I've been reviewing those and other PV 3d party ownership arrangements that IMO, too many fellow HOA members have been and continue to get conned into.
            Then you can tell us what the remedies Lessor has if the lease is in default. Of course that is a moot point since the poster is not part of that contract. Also the lease form may be different in Massachusetts. The issue here is not the lease because the poster has not signed that lease so he is not bound by the terms of the lease. . The issue is whether Tesla/Solar City has any rights to the system. If they do, then the issue becomes what will the title company do to protect the poster. I am not a lawyer but I have had 50 years experience dealing with lawyers on mostly real estate contractual issues. I enforced mechanics liens when I was in the building materials business.

            In legal analysis it is important to understand what the critical issue is all about to avoid blovating and spinning your wheels on irrelevant issues.That is why I focused on the title issue and not the lease.
            Last edited by Ampster; 04-28-2019, 10:52 AM.
            9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by beans31
              ...........
              I am going to wait to see what the title company says. I think this really comes down to if they are fixtures or personal property at this point.
              Yes, I think that is how the issue will turn. You have gotten good advice and now it is up to Tesla to make the next move. I am sure your research and your lawyer has explained to you lots of instances where personal property when affixed to the real estate becomes part of the real estate. I know you would like to get closure but the facts appear to be on your side. Good luck.
              9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ampster View Post
                Your seller paid for a policy of title insurance and the question for the title company is whether that policy covers claims arising from fixture filings (UCC filing). Did the lawyer read the title policy? Have you read the title policy?
                I've owned 5 houses, and NEVER was I as a seller expected to pay for the title insurance policy. Always as a buyer, I was advised by my attorney to have one, especially this last when I paid cash. The lender policy (mandated in the Carolinas for a mortgage loan) would cover up to the mortgage amount, but the lawyer said I'd be bankrupt in the event of a suit; the costs are astronomical.

                Now ... "closing costs paid by seller" exists ... but you are the one with the mortgage that needs the protection, and the owner coverage is a few dollars more than the lender policy ... in the Carolinas. States vary!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by gbynum View Post

                  I've owned 5 houses, and NEVER was I as a seller expected to pay for the title insurance policy. Always as a buyer, I was advised by my attorney to have one, especially this last when I paid cash. The lender policy (mandated in the Carolinas for a mortgage loan) would cover up to the mortgage amount, but the lawyer said I'd be bankrupt in the event of a suit; the costs are astronomical.

                  Now ... "closing costs paid by seller" exists ... but you are the one with the mortgage that needs the protection, and the owner coverage is a few dollars more than the lender policy ... in the Carolinas. States vary!
                  Yes, states vary. In California the policy varies from north to south in terms of how escrows are handled. In the 50 or so transactions that I have been involved in Southern California the buyer only pays for a lenders title policy if there is a loan. Lenders usually get an ALTA (American Land Title Association) endorsement that covers more than just an owners policy. Of course non of that matters because the OP is in Massachusetts and the legal issue is whether Tesla has any rights to the panels on the OPs roof. I believe they don't but I don't know Massachusetts personal property law.
                  Last edited by Ampster; 04-27-2019, 10:28 PM.
                  9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I still wonder if it would really be worth thier while to spend the $$ to deinstall the system. How much is that used gear worth to them?

                    Is Tesla in the business of selling used gear?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by beans31
                      ............

                      What is the difference between a PPA and a lease?
                      A PPA is a specific kind of lease. As far as I know there is no difference. It is structured like a lease with payments made the the Lessor, or however they are described in the PPA.
                      9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Ampster View Post

                        A PPA is a specific kind of lease. As far as I know there is no difference. It is structured like a lease with payments made the the Lessor, or however they are described in the PPA.
                        Actually, there is a difference as the terms are usually defined and used.

                        With a lease, the monthly payment on the lease is the same for 12 months and usually/often increased by a fixed amount per year. The payments are more predictable.

                        With a PPA, the usual and common setup is that the homeowner buys all the power produced by the system, usually per month or similar period at a fixed price per kWh produced with that per kWh price possibly adjusting per year or similar period. Thus, depending on the terms of the PPA, there is usually more variability in the amount paid per period with a PPA than with a lease.

                        There may be other specifics that deal with how a PPA is handled that may be different than a lease in situations such as the OP has.

                        A question I might have is : Did the OP's attorney know the situation involved a PPA and not a lease ?

                        A PPA is not a lease. It is a contract to buy power at a somewhat fixed price per kWh that's produced by a PV system owned by the outfit that puts that PV equipment on a homeowner's property.

                        Bottom line to the OP's last question: With a lease, you are renting equipment. with a PPA, you are buying power.
                        Last edited by J.P.M.; 04-30-2019, 01:33 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Ampster View Post

                          A PPA is a specific kind of lease. As far as I know there is no difference. It is structured like a lease with payments made the the Lessor, or however they are described in the PPA.
                          A PPA is NOT a lease. people confuse them but PPAs are not legal in all states. With a PPA you do not have any claim to the equipment, just the power.
                          OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by beans31
                            Update: Spoke with Tesla this morning, and played pretty dumb about what I know so far. He sent me the original lease agreement. it is a Power Purchase Agreement, and the system is a 726 kw/hr a month system with about 17 years left on the lease.
                            There is no option to buy out now because they need to keep the system on our roof for the next 2 years to get the tax credits and receive benefits from the utility company.

                            He did say when I said that we thought we owned them that they have a lien on the property that protects them from that. So in any case this buys me some time for the title company to do their investigation. I know that the two liens against the house in teslas name were wiped out in the foreclosure. So I will be interested to see what happens

                            What is the difference between a PPA and a lease?
                            seems like they had an agreement with a past homeowner not you. IF they want to continue getting the tax credits then they have to continue to own the equipment
                            This leaves you in a huge bargaining situation, if you were so inclined.

                            Just because he said they have a lien doesn't mean that they do either. They may have had to refile for it and missed that or just forgot in the confusion of the Solar City/ Tesla change up etc.

                            A PPA is NOT a lease. With a PPA the provider retains all ownership rights to the equipment and the homeowner agrees to purchase all the power.
                            With a lease it is similar to car leases, they sometimes have buy outs etc.
                            PPAs are only legal in a few states as well.

                            So with it being a PPA, it is more like abandoned property on the land that you purchased.
                            OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by beans31

                              I do have the upper hand in negotiating terms for myself, but I am not sure I want to actually get into an agreement with them. As it stands now we have no intention of moving, but if we ever did decided to sell it seems like a major pain in the ass to have leased/PPA equipment attached to your house.

                              The title came back clean as of February 15 for when we closed, the liens that solar city did have on the property were dissolved. The lawyer we checked with last week did do a search and nothing came back on the property after the fact.

                              The representative from Tesla did say that there is a buyout option at the end of 5 years and 20 years.
                              Is the equipment operating now?
                              Do you have access to the monitoring?
                              What model inverter is it?
                              OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by beans31


                                The equipment is operating now. I do not have access to the monitoring, just what the electric company sends me. I just looked over the PPA and do not see the model number, I am assuming that is what is on the side of my house? I can check that out when I get home.
                                Yes if it is solaredge you might be able to register your own installer account and put in the serial number thus taking over the monitoring.
                                Tesla does some of them with their own monitoring equipment which hijacks the monitoring and sends it to them but you can physically change that too and have solaredge inverter send directly by connecting it to the internet and changing the configuration at the inverter.


                                As for negotiating Tesla is going to lose the tax credit since they no longer own the equipment. One option for you to possibly consider is to push them that you will sign a 2 year contract with a $1 buy out at the end and $1 a month fee that lets them keep ownership for those 2 years and thus the tax credit for them.
                                You get the equipment and end the legal shenanigans for $25 total dollars and they get to keep their tax credit.
                                Otherwise you report them to IRS AND keep the equipment since it is rightfully yours and counter them for your legal fees...

                                But thats just a suggestion from a tech guy, not a lawyer
                                OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X