Foreclosed home REO PPA lease oh no again!!

[Ampster]

Here is my thinking $3 a watt, $22,185
30% fed $15,529 if I bought new.
used worth half $7514.00

You sound like you have some basic civil code knowledge and perhaps some negotiating skill. I always let them make the first offer, otherwise you are negotiating with yourself or some anonymous poster on the Internet. LOL

I remember a similar situation on the forum a while back and somehow the other party saw the post and the comments so I respect your anonymity and haven't asked for details about where this is. You have already indicated it is California.

[Paul Land]

Here is my thinking $3 a watt, $22,185
30% fed $15,529 if I bought new.
used worth half $7514.00

$3.00 watt work when system has batteries, grid tied is less. That's why salesman hawk the grid tied sweet spot. More profit lower cost and a lot of smoke and mirrors. My PV w/Batts 48v system cost me $20K and got I back $13k credits 35% state + 30% fed. I would sell it for $10K and walk with 3k profit. If I was buying this system I'd offer $4500.00

[1975api2488]

Thanks to all that replied
the solar company is a bunch of jerk offs
they want $20k for it lmao what a joke.
no way in hell I would pay that
yeah worth $5k at best.
t

[Paul Land]

Thanks to all that replied
the solar company is a bunch of jerk offs
they want $20k for it lmao what a joke.
no way in hell I would pay that
yeah worth $5k at best.
t

More Smoke. Time to walk

[Ampster]

More Smoke. Time to walk

If I found a house that I liked, and the facts were the same as the original posters i would would not even consider walking. Maybe I have spent too much time trying to see through the smoke and mirrors that people have thrown at me in transactions but this smoke is pretty transparent. The Original Poster seems to understand the legal issues and has a lot of negotiating leverage. Many years ago I worked in a bank on real estate owned projects and believe me, there are a lot of reasons the Bank wants to be done with this asset.

[1975api2488]

You are right about that (the bank does not want the liability of holding this property)my problem is the solar company thinks they still have a contract they can enforce , but the bank never signed it and neither did I.
the personal property attachment to the title under code 2924 seems to state if it’s attached it’s not personal property
any one have knowledge of this?

[Ampster]

.....
the personal property attachment to the title under code 2924 seems to state if it’s attached it’s not personal property
any one have knowledge of this?

The operative issue may be whose property are the solar panels. Worse case they may belong to the solar company and they may have the right to remove them. If they do, then it probably wouldn't be too difficult to convince them to leave the infrastructure of conduit and roof attachments. A quick inspection should reveal if those attachments were done properly and if so you might want to leave those attachments and get a discount on the installation of a new system complete with ITC.

A new installer would probably want to use their brand of rails for efficiency but they would not have to take on any liability for roof leaks. The money you might save in that case is by underwriting the roof leak risk and saving the installation time of the attachments and conduit.

[1975api2488]

I spoke with the solar company yesterday they seem to think they have the terms of the contract
I had to explain the profit making part of their deal is over
(unless they think the person that signed is gonna pay them after they lost their million dollar house)
i told them if they don’t give a fair price on the solar buy out
that my next step will be to have the bank remove the panels.
at that point we both loose, they will need to pay a crew to remove their system, and have a bunch of 5 year old panels worth nothing.
i believe they will come to their senses
I find out Monday

[foo1bar]

that my next step will be to have the bank remove the panels.

Have you talked to the title company and a lawyer?

Does the solar company have a legal claim to the panels anymore?
Or was that wiped out by foreclosure, the fact that the panels are attached to the home, and that the solar company didn't file a lien on the house?

I would spend $200 on a RE lawyer to have them look at what the solar company's rights are and what your obligations would be (if any) and have them write a letter. If the solar company has no real recourse then the lawyer from the letter will be read by *their* lawyer, and their lawyer will inform them that they have no case. (Or your lawyer will tell you that they do have a case, and then you know what your situation is and you can make plans appropriately)

[1975api2488]

Wrote them asking to remove it with all the logical points, attached “it’s bolted on”
fixture “ attached to the home”
personal property can not be attached to the home , if removed it damages the building, therefor it’s a fixture.

Contract not signed be me.

My next step is to have the bank remove the system.

i will buy a new system that is the correct size for the house
7395 kw on it now , should be 10000 kw.

the reply:

XXXXXXX is not able to remove the Notice of An Independent Solar Energy Producer Contract (Notice). The property is subject to the terms and conditions of the of the solar contract, which in part, requires the independent solar producer to provide the property electrical service through a long term contract. Without a Termination/Release of the Notice and the physical removal of the solar electrical generating system, said Notice, shown as Exception No. 23 in the Preliminary Title Reported, Dated October 15, 2019, cannot be removed.

[foo1bar]

Wrote them asking to remove it with all the logical points, attached “it’s bolted on”
fixture “ attached to the home”
personal property can not be attached to the home , if removed it damages the building, therefor it’s a fixture.

Not clear to me what you wrote or to who.

the reply:

XXXXXXX is not able to remove the Notice of An Independent Solar Energy Producer Contract (Notice). The property is subject to the terms and conditions of the of the solar contract, which in part, requires the independent solar producer to provide the property electrical service through a long term contract. Without a Termination/Release of the Notice and the physical removal of the solar electrical generating system, said Notice, shown as Exception No. 23 in the Preliminary Title Reported, Dated October 15, 2019, cannot be removed.

Is this from the solar company or from the title company or from the bank?

I guess that's really rhetorical - because whatever the answer is, my advice is still to get a lawyer to look at it. They can tell you what the Notice means for you and your interests.

[1975api2488]

It’s a summary of me asking title to remove it.
they will not.


i don’t need a lawyer to tell me it’s a personal property title attachment and it’s not coming off unless it’s removed or
Satisfied By the solar company.
I am not going to clean someone else’s mess up regarding their property, I am simply trying every angle I can to get the buy out price down enough to a reasonable used purchase price or remove it.

[Paul Land]

Wrote them asking to remove it with all the logical points, attached “it’s bolted on”
fixture “ attached to the home”
personal property can not be attached to the home , if removed it damages the building, therefor it’s a fixture.

Contract not signed be me.

My next step is to have the bank remove the system.

i will buy a new system that is the correct size for the house
7395 kw on it now , should be 10000 kw.

the reply:

XXXXXXX is not able to remove the Notice of An Independent Solar Energy Producer Contract (Notice). The property is subject to the terms and conditions of the of the solar contract, which in part, requires the independent solar producer to provide the property electrical service through a long term contract. Without a Termination/Release of the Notice and the physical removal of the solar electrical generating system, said Notice, shown as Exception No. 23 in the Preliminary Title Reported, Dated October 15, 2019, cannot be removed.

Like I Said!!!!!!!!!!!! Are we ready to walk now?

[Ampster]

I share the Original Posters perspective that the bank has every reason to solve this issue. Foreclosed real estate impacts the bank's capital adequacy. I personally don't think they will let a small issue like this affect the impact of a million dollar liability on their balance sheet.

[PugPower]

I have little experience in solar but considerable experience in CA realty. Bottom line, what kind of deal are you getting on this property? I assume since it is a bank foreclosure sold as-is you're getting a good deal at less than market value. If that is the case, you need to ask yourself whether it's worth blowing the deal up over this solar contract. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Only you can answer that. If it were me and assuming the deal & property is good, I would try and negotiate a buy-out with the solar company and/or a lesser price or additional closing cost credits from the bank to cover the buy-out amount. If that doesn't work and the numbers still make sense with the addition of the solar buy-out, I would just bite the bullet, that is assuming the solar system still functions as intended. I would definitely make sure this is resolved one way or another before closing, but that's me. Good luck.