Facts

A solar system was installed on Jose Avila and Silvina Estrada's home. The solar power installation was funded through a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program that allows financing for home improvement projects to be repaid by a special property tax assessment. Ygrene Energy Fund Inc.'s (Ygrene) subsidiary administered PACE programs on behalf of the Golden State Finance Authority, which was being repaid through the assessment on Avila and Estrada's property.

After the solar system was installed, Avila and Estrada received notice that their property taxes had increased. They contacted the Fresno County Tax Auditors to learn the basis for such increase. The tax auditor informed Avila and Estrada that the increase was due to a claim made by Ygrene.

Avila and Estrada filed an action against Ygrene seeking declaratory relief regarding the parties' rights and duties for repayment of the solar installation.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant claimed there was a valid contact between plaintiffs and defendant for repayment of the installation of the solar system which was installed on plaintiffs' home and for which defendant allegedly financed said installation. Plaintiffs denied that they had a contract with defendant or anyone else by which they had an obligation to repay anyone for the installation of the solar systems. Plaintiffs did not deny that they owed someone for the construction of the solar system. Plaintiffs did deny that the assessed charges and the ability to assess their property tax as a means to secure payments from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also denied that they had executed any agreement which allowed that the repayment of the solar system installed on their home would be secured through their property taxes.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it was entitled to summary judgment in its favor because the undisputed facts did not support the premise for the declaration sought by plaintiffs. Defendant asserted that there was no contractual relationship between it and plaintiffs, which was the basis alleged for its involvement in this action. Defendant contended that neither it nor its subsidiary entered into financing contracts with property owners.

Result

Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant.