Trying to sell home with solar loan

[jathans]

Lily3477 : Make sure potential buyers get all the information about your setup - how much it saves on a monthly basis, how old it is, how long is the guarantee, what are the other benefits of having it. Tell them also why, you have decided to go solar. People are just worried about losing their money because they do not trust stranger, but I am sure that a bit of personal and honest approach might help some people decide to give it a try like you did.

It's a shame you have to move from your house when still paying for your solar.

[macaddict]

I'm not sure why you had an appraisal done. That's usually done by the buyer's mortgage company... Here in NJ at least, the realtor is the one that comes up with the sale price (working with you) looking at comps in the area.

What I would do is just take the money from the sale and use it to pay off your own mortgage and the solar loan. I wouldn't even mention the solar loan as part of the listing. I would treat is as if you had a HELOC... it gets paid when you sell the house with the profit. Of course, this only works if you are breaking even of making a profit on the sale (sale price vs. what you owe to your mortgage company + solar loan).

What I would say in the listing is "Solar Panels = No more electric bills".

That would catch my eye and it is certainly my experience with my PV system. Haven't paid for electricity since I got them installed.

[J.P.M.]

I'm not sure why you had an appraisal done. That's usually done by the buyer's mortgage company... Here in NJ at least, the realtor is the one that comes up with the sale price (working with you) looking at comps in the area.

What I would do is just take the money from the sale and use it to pay off your own mortgage and the solar loan. I wouldn't even mention the solar loan as part of the listing. I would treat is as if you had a HELOC... it gets paid when you sell the house with the profit. Of course, this only works if you are breaking even of making a profit on the sale (sale price vs. what you owe to your mortgage company + solar loan).

What I would say in the listing is "Solar Panels = No more electric bills".

That would catch my eye and it is certainly my experience with my PV system. Haven't paid for electricity since I got them installed.

I guess I'd only say that if it was indeed true - for you. Even if true, and I don't doubt it is true for your situation, it'll still be a bogus statement that takes advantage of the just about ubiquitous and gross ignorance about energy use and PV most folks have.

It's a bogus statement because electric bills are largely dependent on electric usage, and everyone's is different - something else most folks don't know and probably don't care about.

Example: If I sold out today, I could say my electric bills are $120/yr. and back it up with lots of bills without informing potential buyers that the low bills are largely because my gross usage is about half that of the average (U. S.) homeowner and my system is very cost ineffectively designed (on purpose, by me). So, along come Joe and Jane 6 pack looking at my 3,200 ft.^2 castle and thinking : " holy crap, we're saddled with $400/month electric bills in our 2,000 ft.^2 place. This place, my home) and the PV on it will save us 4 grand a year in electric bills."

Well, maybe, maybe not. If their usage is about average, they'll be in for about a $1,200 to $1,400/yr. surprise, +/- some based on current SDG & E rates and likely system production. Probably not bad, but not the $120 they, in their ignorance, were led to infer.

[Sunking]

It's a bogus statement because electric bills are largely dependent on electric usage, and everyone's is different - something else most folks don't know and probably don't care about.

Me thinks you might have issues with Full Disclosure laws. It really comes down to this. Any house is only worth what the buyer is willing to pay. The buyer does not give a rats arse if the seller is making a profit or taking a loss. When you sell a home, the Title must be free and clear with no liens when closure.

It sucks to sell your home and take a loss. More times than not, the seller just walks away and defaults to avoid writing the check at closure. Exactly what happened in 2008. As buyers you could pick up a house for pennies on the dollar with a Short Sale. Made a lot of millionaires. It was a Flippers paradise.

[J.P.M.]

Me thinks you might have issues with Full Disclosure laws. It really comes down to this. Any house is only worth what the buyer is willing to pay. The buyer does not give a rats arse if the seller is making a profit or taking a loss. When you sell a home, the Title must be free and clear with no liens when closure.

It sucks to sell your home and take a loss. More times than not, the seller just walks away and defaults to avoid writing the check at closure. Exactly what happened in 2008. As buyers you could pick up a house for pennies on the dollar with a Short Sale. Made a lot of millionaires. It was a Flippers paradise.

No issues at all. Full, partial or none. All the same to me. Particularly in the world I live in where everyone pretty much does what they want anyway, from driving while texting to cheating on their taxes to yacking on their phones in theatres to not controlling their kids most anywhere, to ....?

Bottom line: In my world, such disclosure requirements have little meaning because such things as full, or any, disclosure will not happen - consequence free - or, for example, buyer ignorance where a buyer won't know, or care, how such things as zero bills happen (which, I suppose might fall under the "full" part of any disclosure), or why it means.

For those who rely on such things and believe they work to their original purpose, I have bridges for sale.

As for the worth of a property, I first heard that a thing was only worth what someone was willing to pay - and not one red cent more - as a child. And while it's common knowledge, I believe the first time I saw that phrase used on this forum was when I wrote it, probably in a thread about how much PV adds to property resale values, and I've probably written about it more than most any other poster since.

My point was offered as more of a caveat emptor with the observation, and, like everything else around here, only as an opinion, that being: Using "zero electric bills" as a selling point, while perhaps a fact, is an incomplete factoid in need of more information, the type of which most folks are probably and completely unaware.

In the end, I don't care the north end of a south bound rat, and it's absolutely NOMB, how people view, use or manipulate the truth, whatever that is or means.

An example: If someone claims (as I and others can) that their home is a net generator of power with the POCO therefore paying them every year for excess generation, I expect that might be an even stronger selling point than zero bills. But leaving out the rest of that story, which may include the greater premium the owner is probably expecting to recoup in the selling price for some of the excess initial PV investment that the oversizing required, may be part of the rest of the story the seller is leaving out, and which the buyer may need to know about to make a more informed decision. Maybe that's more of the "full" part in full disclosure.

Or, as another example of caveat emptor, an owner may claim (again, as I and others can) that their systems add more value to the property than other systems because they are Sunpower systems and are therefore the "most efficient", with that claim being "backed up" and "proven" by, and with, all sorts of slick Sunpower hype and pretty pictures, all of which is, as known and a matter of common sense among those truly informed about PV, no more than B.S.

My original point and stated opinion was that, while NOMB, claiming "zero electric bills" as a selling point seems a bit disingenuous and another example of a situation where the idea of "Caveat Emptor" may well apply.

IMO only, the idea of full or any legally required disclosure is made moot due to my observation that any such disclosure requirements, like most everything else these days, are widely unenforced and ignored as a matter of either ignorance or convenience and, mostly and probably, without consequence.

In the new wild west of truth, or the lack of it, or what may be no more than the higher visibility of the lack of truth that's always been with us, we're all on our own. I have no issues with legally required disclosures because they are irrelevant and therefore moot - same as other laws that are not enforced.

[peakbagger]

Unfortunately I think we are a bunch of engineers with some level of ethics debating what is effectively a sales situation. A good salesman is going to figure out a way to make an uneducated buyer think they are going to get a great deal without getting tripped up by a disclosure. My guess is the salesmen wouldnt represent it as a zero electric bill home as much as they would stress that the prior owner said they had zero electric bills possibly backed up with copies of old bills. If the potential buyer wants to assume that their experience would be similar, that's their wrong assumption. I run into many buyers who dont understand the limits of disclosures and realtors depend on this innocence. They are pennywise and pound foolish and in a hot market without a lot of inventory I expect many folks waive inspections and rely on seller property disclosures.

Last year I made an offer on a piece of property with an older camp on it, had I relied on the sellers property disclosure that there was no asbestos on the property I would have eaten 20 to 30 K of asbestos abatement. Some of it was right out in the open. Sure it cost me a few bucks to pay an independent asbestos inspector but it was worth walking away. I did a counter offer if I had to mitigate but the sellers refused it. They sold it several months later for not much more then my counter offer. The person who eventually bought it has a reputation for taking shortcuts so I would not be surprised if the camp burns down one of these days.

[J.P.M.]

Unfortunately I think we are a bunch of engineers with some level of ethics debating what is effectively a sales situation. A good salesman is going to figure out a way to make an uneducated buyer think they are going to get a great deal without getting tripped up by a disclosure. My guess is the salesmen wouldnt represent it as a zero electric bill home as much as they would stress that the prior owner said they had zero electric bills possibly backed up with copies of old bills. If the potential buyer wants to assume that their experience would be similar, that's their wrong assumption. I run into many buyers who dont understand the limits of disclosures and realtors depend on this innocence. They are pennywise and pound foolish and in a hot market without a lot of inventory I expect many folks waive inspections and rely on seller property disclosures.

Last year I made an offer on a piece of property with an older camp on it, had I relied on the sellers property disclosure that there was no asbestos on the property I would have eaten 20 to 30 K of asbestos abatement. Some of it was right out in the open. Sure it cost me a few bucks to pay an independent asbestos inspector but it was worth walking away. I did a counter offer if I had to mitigate but the sellers refused it. They sold it several months later for not much more then my counter offer. The person who eventually bought it has a reputation for taking shortcuts so I would not be surprised if the camp burns down one of these days.

As one who made a good living for about 10+ years as a peddler before changing careers, I'd take issue with implication or characterization that salespeople who mislead their customers are "good". Sometimes you just need to take the bull by the tail, face the situation squarely, let go and walk away.

I'm no Pollyanna, and not a saint by anyone's criteria, but not being truthful in such cases as you describe with respect to dancing around a disclosure, while I'm sure if not common, at least not unheard of either, is not something most ethical (and very successful BTW) salespeople I know would engage in. Believe it or not, some still get up in the morning and look in the mirror. Maintaining self respect in such situations was sometimes a real challenge for me, and other salespeople I call my friends.

I think I understand what you're writing. It may well be and probably is a common way of acting. I just take some issue with the implication that those who engage in such activity are "good" salespeople. Financially successful and maybe efficient and successful by some standards. Just questionable ethics, and all the more reason to practice Caveat Emptor, and another reason to not put a lot of faith or credence in disclosures, legally required or not.

[macaddict]

Geez, my line about "no more electric bills" was a joke... I think I put an emoji...

Going back to the original question... The substance of my post was that the solar loan should be be paid off as part of the sale (as any other outstanding loan) and the buyer should not need to take it on.

[ImInPhxAZ]

I'll offer you some fresh advice. Get a new realtor. Sounds like you aren't getting much traffic, and if someone really likes the house, the solar isnt a detractor. I know plenty who negotiated the solar lease liability into a discount.

Once you move from tire kickers to real buyers, it isn't an issue, it's just a negotiation.

[Sunking]

I'll offer you some fresh advice. Get a new realtor. Sounds like you aren't getting much traffic, and if someone really likes the house, the solar isnt a detractor. I know plenty who negotiated the solar lease liability into a discount.

Once you move from tire kickers to real buyers, it isn't an issue, it's just a negotiation.

While I agree, having solar and leased solar eliminates a lot of buyers. Turns it into a niche market with very limited buyers. Today housing market is a Seller's Market and is HOT. If the OP is not getting offers, and his neighbors are, well... I was just back in TX/OK and houses are sold within hours or a couple of days and many selling above asking price.

[azdave]

Sellers market for sure! We just sold our second home in under 48 hours at full asking price (which was 15% higher than I ever thought we could get). Homes around here are under contract in 2-3 days.

[Sunking]

Sellers market for sure! We just sold our second home in under 48 hours at full asking price (which was 15% higher than I ever thought we could get). Homes around here are under contract in 2-3 days.

Sure seems to be the case in most places. Wife and I sold a vacation house in Prescott AZ a couple of months ago. We got more than asking price and sold in 24 hours, Closed 3 days later with a nice fat check. We bought it in 2008 on a short sale and made a nice profit, and the good thing about real estate is not a lot of taxes on the profit. Great investment. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting rich who bought homes in 2008/2009 and selling today. Some completely tax free.

[SunEagle]

Sure seems to be the case in most places. Wife and I sold a vacation house in Prescott AZ a couple of months ago. We got more than asking price and sold in 24 hours, Closed 3 days later with a nice fat check. We bought it in 2008 on a short sale and made a nice profit, and the good thing about real estate is not a lot of taxes on the profit. Great investment. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting rich who bought homes in 2008/2009 and selling today. Some completely tax free.

Cool. We plan to get our old home up for sale in about 6 weeks. I hope we get a good price for it.

[Sunking]

Cool. We plan to get our old home up for sale in about 6 weeks. I hope we get a good price for it.

I know where the house is at, and you should have no problem in Tampa/Clearwater market. You might even get a bidding war and get more than asking price. Good luck.

[J.P.M.]

Cool. We plan to get our old home up for sale in about 6 weeks. I hope we get a good price for it.

Start high. It's always easier to come down in price than go up.