We are getting ready to sell our house. I have two powerwalls, owned free and clear. Also have 11.34kw solar, which is rented. The solar is split into two systems...one "medium" at $100/month, and one "small" at $50/month. Added them at different times, which is why they are separate.
We will be listing our house for sale in 2-3 weeks. The way I see it, there are 3 outcomes when we sell, minus the overly complicated scenarios of splitting the solar and powerwalls by keeping one and getting rid of the other.
1) Buyer assumes solar rental contracts, and PWs are included in the purchase. Basically house conveys as-is to buyer.
2) We remove the solar (one contract says no removal fee and the other says $2500 removal fee, so charges are TBD) and take the PWs with us to the new house. This seems like a PITA for a couple reasons...first, there's the removal timeline which may or may not align with our selling schedule, and I have no idea what the permitting looks like this. Second if we take the PWs with us, it's not enough to power the new house (current has one A/C and new has three), so I'd have to buy more, which I really don't want to do, at least in the near future.
3) Buyer takes PWs as part of the house sale and buys the solar separately from Tesla at whatever they consider to be fair market value. TBD whether the purchase is part of the sale or happens after.
My realtor had a deal that she said was extremely difficult in the past, but it included a Solar City system that was later bought out by Tesla, and I'm not sure if it was a lease or rental or who financed it. But apparently it was difficult to have the buyer buy it out, and the price from Tesla kept changing, there were attorneys involved and it sounded like a mess. So she is recommending that we just have the system removed prior to sale to make things easier. She thinks we will lose prospective buyers due to the complexity of the transaction, and assuming leases is generally a big negative, even though this isn't a lease.
My thought is that it would be a lot easier to have the buyer assume the rental contracts, and then they can decide after the fact if they want to cancel them or continue or buy them out. Just seems easier to me, but of course I'm biased because that's the easiest option for me.
Has anyone here dealt with transferring a rental solar system to a buyer, and what was the outcome? Was it simple and easy? How about removal? What was the timeline on that, and the quality of work? What was the feedback from prospective buyers on whether they wanted the solar or not?
Any experience or advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
We will be listing our house for sale in 2-3 weeks. The way I see it, there are 3 outcomes when we sell, minus the overly complicated scenarios of splitting the solar and powerwalls by keeping one and getting rid of the other.
1) Buyer assumes solar rental contracts, and PWs are included in the purchase. Basically house conveys as-is to buyer.
2) We remove the solar (one contract says no removal fee and the other says $2500 removal fee, so charges are TBD) and take the PWs with us to the new house. This seems like a PITA for a couple reasons...first, there's the removal timeline which may or may not align with our selling schedule, and I have no idea what the permitting looks like this. Second if we take the PWs with us, it's not enough to power the new house (current has one A/C and new has three), so I'd have to buy more, which I really don't want to do, at least in the near future.
3) Buyer takes PWs as part of the house sale and buys the solar separately from Tesla at whatever they consider to be fair market value. TBD whether the purchase is part of the sale or happens after.
My realtor had a deal that she said was extremely difficult in the past, but it included a Solar City system that was later bought out by Tesla, and I'm not sure if it was a lease or rental or who financed it. But apparently it was difficult to have the buyer buy it out, and the price from Tesla kept changing, there were attorneys involved and it sounded like a mess. So she is recommending that we just have the system removed prior to sale to make things easier. She thinks we will lose prospective buyers due to the complexity of the transaction, and assuming leases is generally a big negative, even though this isn't a lease.
My thought is that it would be a lot easier to have the buyer assume the rental contracts, and then they can decide after the fact if they want to cancel them or continue or buy them out. Just seems easier to me, but of course I'm biased because that's the easiest option for me.
Has anyone here dealt with transferring a rental solar system to a buyer, and what was the outcome? Was it simple and easy? How about removal? What was the timeline on that, and the quality of work? What was the feedback from prospective buyers on whether they wanted the solar or not?
Any experience or advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.