()

Justice Linda S. Jamieson

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association moved for summary judgment, and appointment of a referee in this foreclosure action. The court concluded there was no basis to deny the motion finding plaintiff was he holder of the subject note and mortgage, for which no payment had been made since July 2015, thus, there was a default. As such, it ruled to execute the proposed order. However, regarding defendant Solarcity Corp., the provider of a rooftop solar panel system presently installed on the subject premises, the court found the system, Solarcity leased to decedent, was not a “fixture” that must remain with the foreclosed home. The court ruled the solar system was removable, noting the contract between decedent and Solarcity expressly stated that Solarcity owned the system through the life of the lease. Accordingly, the court stated there was no reason for it to treat the system any differently than it would a leased television within the home, or other personalty. Therefore, the court concluded Solarcity should make arrangements with defendant Lipman to have the system removed, stating if Lipman was uncooperative, Solarcity had other legal remedies to utilize.

Justice Linda S. Jamieson

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association moved for summary judgment, and appointment of a referee in this foreclosure action. The court concluded there was no basis to deny the motion finding plaintiff was he holder of the subject note and mortgage, for which no payment had been made since July 2015, thus, there was a default. As such, it ruled to execute the proposed order. However, regarding defendant Solarcity Corp., the provider of a rooftop solar panel system presently installed on the subject premises, the court found the system, Solarcity leased to decedent, was not a “fixture” that must remain with the foreclosed home. The court ruled the solar system was removable, noting the contract between decedent and Solarcity expressly stated that Solarcity owned the system through the life of the lease. Accordingly, the court stated there was no reason for it to treat the system any differently than it would a leased television within the home, or other personalty. Therefore, the court concluded Solarcity should make arrangements with defendant Lipman to have the system removed, stating if Lipman was uncooperative, Solarcity had other legal remedies to utilize.