Consumer laws !

[FGal]

Myself and my sister inherited my mom's home upon her passing Oct. 2017 in Hesperia Ca. my sister and her family were residing in it. She signed a 20 year lease contract for solar panels without my knowledge 11/2018. I found out last year 2019 through a text and photo my friend sent me. My sister passed away 5/2019 , I called the company that installed them and told them I want a copy of this contract. There is an area in contract that asked if all parties are in agreement with contract , I would have never signed this. I mentioned this to the company that installed the panels they basically told me they only need one signature and if I want the panels off it will take legal action. I would like to if I have any legal rights ?

 

[Zigner]

Myself and my sister inherited my mom's home upon her passing Oct. 2017 in Hesperia Ca. my sister and her family were residing in it. She signed a 20 year lease contract for solar panels without my knowledge 11/2018. I found out last year 2019 through a text and photo my friend sent me. My sister passed away 5/2019 , I called the company that installed them and told them I want a copy of this contract. There is an area in contract that asked if all parties are in agreement with contract , I would have never signed this. I mentioned this to the company that installed the panels they basically told me they only need one signature and if I want the panels off it will take legal action. I would like to if I have any legal rights ?

You've got tons of rights, just like any other citizen (and many non-citizens) in California.
If you are asking specifically about the contract, the obligations of each party are spelled out within that contract. You would be wise to consult with a local attorney.

 

[adjusterjack]

There is an area in contract that asked if all parties are in agreement with contract

That means all the parties TO the contract. Not everybody else that could possibly be speculated to be involved. Your sister had apparent authority to lease the solar just like she had the authority to buy a water heater or subscribe to cable.

Take the contract to an attorney and see if you have an out.

 

[LdiJ]

I am guessing that the solar panel company put in lien against at least the sister's half of the house. That lien would not expire just because someone inherited her share of the house.

 

[adjusterjack]

I am guessing that the solar panel company put in lien against at least the sister's half of the house. That lien would not expire just because someone inherited her share of the house.

That would depend on the terms and conditions of the contract. I looked at a house last year that had one of those 20 year solar leases. I thoroughly read the contract. While a contractor could certainly record a lien for non-payment, the contract I read just had the lease secured by the equipment and not by a lien on the house.

 

[Litigator22]

That would depend on the terms and conditions of the contract. I looked at a house last year that had one of those 20 year solar leases. I thoroughly read the contract. While a contractor could certainly record a lien for non-payment, (?) the contract I read just had the lease secured by the equipment and not by a lien on the house.

Please excuse me AJ, but I can't agree with your statement that the "the contractor (leasing company) could record a lien (against the home) for non-payment"! That is, it having a continuing, preferential right to do so.

Also, I must dispute Ldij's offering that the solar panel company might have unilaterally placed an enforceable lien "against at least the sister's half of the house".

Please understand that I have no quarrel with the ability of the leasing company to do file a UCC-1 financing statement to preserve their ownership in the panels as against successive owners of the property. Nor the ability of the owner to grant the provider of the leased panels a deed of trust to secure the leased payments. Where I disagree is with any suggestion that in the current illustration that the leasing company can now self- impose any lien or security interest against the home.

Even assuming that the instillation of the leased panels even qualifies as "works of improvement" entitling the company to a mechanic's lien against the home, any such lien rights are provisional, time sensitive AND in this instance have long since expired! To explain:

First of all a formal claim of (mechanic's) lien must be recorded with 90 days of the completion of the work. (Cal. Civil Code Section 8412)

[Plus, a copy of the claim of lien, together with the statutory form of "Notice of Mechanics Lien" must be served on the owner or reputed owners of the property by registered, certified or first class mail. (Noting that the failure to properly serve such documents results in a forfeiture of the lien.) (Cal. Civil Code Section 8416 (8) (c)]

Secondly, the claimant must commence an action to enforce the claim of lien within 90 days following the date the claim of lien is recorded. If no action is commenced to enforce the claim of lien within that 90-day period, the claim of lien expires and "is unenforceable as a matter of law". (Cal. CC Section 8460 (a)

So we're looking at a window of 180 days or so and not from the date of any non-payment, but from date that the installation of the panels was completed. And that, according to the OP had to have occurred, sometime in late 2018 or early 2019.

Clearly then the leasing entity does not now have an enforceable mechanic's lien against any part of property nor can it unilaterally create such a lien.

This is not to say that the sister could not have somehow singularly and voluntarily encumbered or made an attempt to encumber the property in order to secure the lease payments. But IMO it would need to be in the nature of a recorded deed of trust or mortgage as there are no provisions in applicable law contemplating an owner of real property voluntarily imposing a mechanic's lien against their own property. Or for that matter waiving or relaxing any time constraints on the part of the contractor within which to file a claim of lien.

Moreover, inasmuch as mechanic's liens were not recognized at common law it is a standard rule of construction that the statutes creating them must be literally and strictly interpreted. Meaning not liberally, generously, or permissively or broadly applied.
______________________

So, assuming that the leasing company is without any security interest in the home and the OP is clearly not personally liable, what are its courses of action now that its customer is deceased - other than to retrieve and salvage the panels? I would like hearing your views and comments.

Perplexing for example is how would a creditor's claim against the sister's estate for future occurring interest payments ( 18 years) be administered through probate? Frankly, I don't know.

Also, what responsibilities, if any, would inure to the sister's heirs of they succeed to her undivided, one half ownership in the home? Or that of the OP should he elect purchase her interest. And the resulting consequences if both interests are sold to a bfp?

Interesting state of affairs (to me at least) that might make a good bar exam question. (Thankfully it wasn't on the one I took.)

Have a good one

 

[NeilTheCop]

So, assuming that the leasing company is without any security interest in the home and the OP is clearly not personally liable, what are its courses of action now that its customer is deceased - other than to retrieve and salvage the panels? I would like hearing your views and comments.

I would advise against the OP touching the panels. As there is some sort of agreement regarding leasing the panels they are still owned by the solar company. Plus any existing damage to the panels could easily be attributed to their unauthorized removal. California requres a licensed electrician to do just about anything regarding electricity to the home.
Article 690 lists the hoops California wants you to jump through.
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-and-standards/free-access?mode=view

 

[quincy]

I would advise against the OP touching the panels. As there is some sort of agreement regarding leasing the panels they are still owned by the solar company. Plus any existing damage to the panels could easily be attributed to their unauthorized removal. California requres a licensed electrician to do just about anything regarding electricity to the home.
Article 690 lists the hoops California wants you to jump through.
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-and-standards/free-access?mode=view

Litigator was referring to the solar panel company retrieving the panels.

 

[LdiJ]

Please excuse me AJ, but I can't agree with your statement that the "the contractor (leasing company) could record a lien (against the home) for non-payment"! That is, it having a continuing, preferential right to do so.

Also, I must dispute Ldij's offering that the solar panel company might have unilaterally placed an enforceable lien "against at least the sister's half of the house".

Please understand that I have no quarrel with the ability of the leasing company to do file a UCC-1 financing statement to preserve their ownership in the panels as against successive owners of the property. Nor the ability of the owner to grant the provider of the leased panels a deed of trust to secure the leased payments. Where I disagree is with any suggestion that in the current illustration that the leasing company can now self- impose any lien or security interest against the home.

Even assuming that the instillation of the leased panels even qualifies as "works of improvement" entitling the company to a mechanic's lien against the home, any such lien rights are provisional, time sensitive AND in this instance have long since expired! To explain:

First of all a formal claim of (mechanic's) lien must be recorded with 90 days of the completion of the work. (Cal. Civil Code Section 8412)

[Plus, a copy of the claim of lien, together with the statutory form of "Notice of Mechanics Lien" must be served on the owner or reputed owners of the property by registered, certified or first class mail. (Noting that the failure to properly serve such documents results in a forfeiture of the lien.) (Cal. Civil Code Section 8416 (8) (c)]

Secondly, the claimant must commence an action to enforce the claim of lien within 90 days following the date the claim of lien is recorded. If no action is commenced to enforce the claim of lien within that 90-day period, the claim of lien expires and "is unenforceable as a matter of law". (Cal. CC Section 8460 (a)

So we're looking at a window of 180 days or so and not from the date of any non-payment, but from date that the installation of the panels was completed. And that, according to the OP had to have occurred, sometime in late 2018 or early 2019.

Clearly then the leasing entity does not now have an enforceable mechanic's lien against any part of property nor can it unilaterally create such a lien.

This is not to say that the sister could not have somehow singularly and voluntarily encumbered or made an attempt to encumber the property in order to secure the lease payments. But IMO it would need to be in the nature of a recorded deed of trust or mortgage as there are no provisions in applicable law contemplating an owner of real property voluntarily imposing a mechanic's lien against their own property. Or for that matter waiving or relaxing any time constraints on the part of the contractor within which to file a claim of lien.

Moreover, inasmuch as mechanic's liens were not recognized at common law it is a standard rule of construction that the statutes creating them must be literally and strictly interpreted. Meaning not liberally, generously, or permissively or broadly applied.
______________________

So, assuming that the leasing company is without any security interest in the home and the OP is clearly not personally liable, what are its courses of action now that its customer is deceased - other than to retrieve and salvage the panels? I would like hearing your views and comments.

Perplexing for example is how would a creditor's claim against the sister's estate for future occurring interest payments ( 18 years) be administered through probate? Frankly, I don't know.

Also, what responsibilities, if any, would inure to the sister's heirs of they succeed to her undivided, one half ownership in the home? Or that of the OP should he elect purchase her interest. And the resulting consequences if both interests are sold to a bfp?

Interesting state of affairs (to me at least) that might make a good bar exam question. (Thankfully it wasn't on the one I took.)

Have a good one

Much of the above is why I believe that there likely would have been a provision in the contract allowing for the solar panel company to put a lien against the home. The lawyers for the solar panel company would have been aware, when drafting the contracts, that there would be instances where the owner of the home would pass away before the end of the leasing period, and that there needed to be protections for the solar panel company in place in that instance.

I would also be curious to know whether or not it was a regular lease or a capital lease.

 

[FGal]

That means all the parties TO the contract. Not everybody else that could possibly be speculated to be involved. Your sister had apparent authority to lease the solar just like she had the authority to buy a water heater or subscribe to cable.

Take the contract to an attorney and see if you have an out.

I'm sorry but I disagree to your comment as this is 20 years , or to purchase entails $30,000. Very big difference.

That means all the parties TO the contract. Not everybody else that could possibly be speculated to be involved. Your sister had apparent authority to lease the solar just like she had the authority to buy a water heater or subscribe to cable.

Take the contract to an attorney and see if you have an out.

I disagree with it being like cable or water heater as that is a Not a 20 yr lease with a monthly payment , or if panels are purchased $30,000 !!!

 

[FGal]

Please excuse me AJ, but I can't agree with your statement that the "the contractor (leasing company) could record a lien (against the home) for non-payment"! That is, it having a continuing, preferential right to do so.

Also, I must dispute Ldij's offering that the solar panel company might have unilaterally placed an enforceable lien "against at least the sister's half of the house".

Please understand that I have no quarrel with the ability of the leasing company to do file a UCC-1 financing statement to preserve their ownership in the panels as against successive owners of the property. Nor the ability of the owner to grant the provider of the leased panels a deed of trust to secure the leased payments. Where I disagree is with any suggestion that in the current illustration that the leasing company can now self- impose any lien or security interest against the home.

Even assuming that the instillation of the leased panels even qualifies as "works of improvement" entitling the company to a mechanic's lien against the home, any such lien rights are provisional, time sensitive AND in this instance have long since expired! To explain:

First of all a formal claim of (mechanic's) lien must be recorded with 90 days of the completion of the work. (Cal. Civil Code Section 8412)

[Plus, a copy of the claim of lien, together with the statutory form of "Notice of Mechanics Lien" must be served on the owner or reputed owners of the property by registered, certified or first class mail. (Noting that the failure to properly serve such documents results in a forfeiture of the lien.) (Cal. Civil Code Section 8416 (8) (c)]

Secondly, the claimant must commence an action to enforce the claim of lien within 90 days following the date the claim of lien is recorded. If no action is commenced to enforce the claim of lien within that 90-day period, the claim of lien expires and "is unenforceable as a matter of law". (Cal. CC Section 8460 (a)

So we're looking at a window of 180 days or so and not from the date of any non-payment, but from date that the installation of the panels was completed. And that, according to the OP had to have occurred, sometime in late 2018 or early 2019.

Clearly then the leasing entity does not now have an enforceable mechanic's lien against any part of property nor can it unilaterally create such a lien.

This is not to say that the sister could not have somehow singularly and voluntarily encumbered or made an attempt to encumber the property in order to secure the lease payments. But IMO it would need to be in the nature of a recorded deed of trust or mortgage as there are no provisions in applicable law contemplating an owner of real property voluntarily imposing a mechanic's lien against their own property. Or for that matter waiving or relaxing any time constraints on the part of the contractor within which to file a claim of lien.

Moreover, inasmuch as mechanic's liens were not recognized at common law it is a standard rule of construction that the statutes creating them must be literally and strictly interpreted. Meaning not liberally, generously, or permissively or broadly applied.
______________________

So, assuming that the leasing company is without any security interest in the home and the OP is clearly not personally liable, what are its courses of action now that its customer is deceased - other than to retrieve and salvage the panels? I would like hearing your views and comments.

Perplexing for example is how would a creditor's claim against the sister's estate for future occurring interest payments ( 18 years) be administered through probate? Frankly, I don't know.

Also, what responsibilities, if any, would inure to the sister's heirs of they succeed to her undivided, one half ownership in the home? Or that of the OP should he elect purchase her interest. And the resulting consequences if both interests are sold to a bfp?

Interesting state of affairs (to me at least) that might make a good bar exam question. (Thankfully it wasn't on the one I took.)

Have a good one

Thank you for your response , as it's given me more information. I spoke to my deceased sister's husband recently. He said he told her to Not sign the solar contract. He also stated that the salesperson told my sister " If you decide you want the panels off , just call and we'll retrieve them ! " which was just a sales ploy. Very upset

 

[quincy]

I'm sorry but I disagree to your comment as this is 20 years , or to purchase entails $30,000. Very big difference.

I disagree with it being like cable or water heater as that is a Not a 20 yr lease with a monthly payment , or if panels are purchased $30,000 !!!

You should have the lease agreement personally reviewed by an attorney in your area.

 

[bcr229]

Thank you for your response , as it's given me more information. I spoke to my deceased sister's husband recently. He said he told her to Not sign the solar contract. He also stated that the salesperson told my sister " If you decide you want the panels off , just call and we'll retrieve them ! " which was just a sales ploy. Very upset

Does he have a copy of the contract or can he get you one? And does he know if the contract is a lease or if it's a power purchase agreement (PPA)?

 

[quincy]

The solar panel company more than likely was granted a security interest in the home.

Here is a link to a California solar financing guide (2015): https://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/tools/marketing/consumer_guides/Homeowner_Guide_to_Solar_Financing_February_2015.pdf

 

[NeilTheCop]

Litigator was referring to the solar panel company retrieving the panels.

I read it wrong