[alberth]

OT: a friend of mine recently bought a house. They were surprised to learn at closing that the seller had financed their solar panels and that wasn’t apart of the home purchase.

So they had to negotiate who was going to pay off the solar panel, and this all had to be completed before home sale.

[nopurpose]

I'd expect solicitors to find liabilities like that. How did it end?

[gizmo686]

The "before closing" does a lot of work here. It sounds like the seller made the disclosure when they were legally required to. This is pretty common in large purchases. First the buyer and seller agree in principle, then they perform their due diligence. Sometimes sales fall through at that last step.

If, hypothetically, the seller never disclosed the financing, then that would be an issue between the seller and the financer. At most, the buyer would need to allow the financer access to retrieve their property. The financer could then sue the seller for the buy-out cost and/or breach of contract.

As an aside, at least around here (USA), if you see a house with solar panels, it is a good assumption that they are financed.

[adonovan]

At least here in Brooklyn a significant minority (a third?) are purchased outright, as that gives the best long term return if you can afford the initial investment, and it simplifies a later house sale (see thread above). I think some of the tax incentives only apply in that case too.

[flutas]

> At most, the buyer would need to allow the financer access to retrieve their property. The financer could then sue the seller for the buy-out cost and/or breach of contract.

Nope, at least not typically.

Typically in the US houses are sold as-is unless it's noted in the closing docs. Everything in or on the house when you close is yours. The seller would be the one fighting with the financing company, as (again unless noted in closing docs) they would be considered fixtures and considered part of the real estate sale.

[gizmo686]

Financer is probably not the correct word here. The common model around here is that an installer puts solar panels on your roof, and sells you the right to their electric output in exchange for a fixed fee (with a fixed annual increase). That is to say, the original homeowner never owned the solar panels, and so never had the right to sell it in the firstplace.

If the solar panels were financed with an unsecured loan, then the home buyer would unambigously own them. It is also possible for the lender to have a lien against the panels; which again would survive the home sale.

[michaelt]

In the UK there's a standard(-ish) form [1] the seller competes, before contracts are exchanged.

So if a seller wants to keep their smart doorbell, or their curtains, or to take all the plants from the garden - they can agree that, as part of contract and price negotiation. At the same time, the buyer gets to send people to check the property and can lower or withdraw their offer depending on what the inspections reveal.

(And yes, this is a very slow way of doing this)

[1] https://www.rlo.law/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/fc.pdf

[deepsun]

I've heard it's pretty standard, their real estate agent should know that (and tell them about it on their first visit).

[gwbas1c]

In the US, Real Estate Agent is a sink-or-swim job. There are a lot of barely competent real estate agents who go through the motions, but otherwise only superficially understand how to do the job.

For example, I run an HOA, and agents routinely forget, until the last minute, to come to me for the HOA's paperwork. The state even requires 10 days notice. I've switched to an attitude where I proactively reach out to the seller (not agent) early in the process.

[TeMPOraL]

> Real Estate Agent is a sink-or-swim job. There are a lot of barely competent real estate agents who go through the motions, but otherwise only superficially understand how to do the job.

Language question (ESL speaker here): how does that square? I'd think "sink-or-swim" would imply those still swimming are competent enough by definition?

[gwbas1c]

https://www.google.com/search?q=sink+or+swim&ie=UTF-8

(In case my results are personalized)

> "Sink or swim" is a common English idiom that means a person must either succeed through their own efforts or fail completely, with no middle ground or outside help.

There are a lot of jobs in the US that are easy to get, but many people fail at the job. Typically these are sales jobs where the pay is mostly commission. (IE, most pay is tied to making sales.) The "sink or swim" aspect is that either someone is successful (IE, they make sales and get paid) or fail (don't make sales and thus don't get paid) and move on.

[TeMPOraL]

Right, but I understood this to mean you either succeed at this job, or fail and go do something else. Succeeding or failing at individual sales isn't particularly interesting- broken down enough, every job has binary outcome subtasks.