I think the propane group was arguing a bunch of points.
One point was that the propane tank isn't allowed to be touched by the owner - so how can you call it "real property".
Gas tanks and water tanks have no such no-touch restrictions.
They listed a few of these things in the arguments (and they pointed to case law a few times).
There arguments do bolster the funny feeling I had with all the examples that were provided, every single one of which was vastly different than the situation with the propane tanks (e.g., cars, garbage, electricity, telephone, satellite dish, etc.)
So, having struggled with this concept myself, I'm a believer that the only case law that will make sense is California (and perhaps NY) case law specifically for propane tanks.
BTW, is there a lawyer in the group? (I can't be the only one on the planet to notice that California apparently treats propane tanks different than most other states.)
Actually, the "county" gob'ment is alive and well today. I spend a few hours there today. All in all, I came out with nothing; but here's what I know.
There are NO LIENS going back to multiple owners and to when the house was built. The only lien on the house is the mortgage. So, nobody has sued for their real property to be returned.
There are NO PERMITS for the propane tanks. They don't even show up on any of the original plans. There is absolutely nothing in the plans for the propane tanks. The *only* mention of anything was that the gas plumbing was signed off for leak testing. That's it.
So, at the county recorder's office (and planning office), there is no record of any ownership of the propane tanks.
California figured they'd get more money from propane companies if they call propane tanks real property instead of personal property.
I'm not sure how they'd get more money - but - the fact the propane companies clearly argue the contrary opinion should give us a clue.
So, we now know that, in California, the TAX guys consider propane tanks "real property".
The question has merit whether the COURTS also consider it real property.
This is especially important because a house that is sold, transfers the real property, unless something is stated otherwise. Right?
If that's the case, then any real property that was actually owned by the previous owner, was also transferred.
However, in this case, we don't know WHO owned that tank at the time of sale.
The good news is that, if it's real property that is actually owned by Amerigas (at this point), then I have a case to have my title insurance make me whole because this is a real-property ownership issue that popped up well after the sale.
The funny thing is that my searches all show that Suburban actually owned that tank. Yet, Suburban never installed it at my residence.
So, unless Suburban sold it to the Heritage Group (who was bought by Amerigas), I doubt even Amerigas can establish ownership of that tank.
I just wish I could find a single similar California court case to read by way of example - but - Google is failing me.
I received a call from the third-party advisor to my title insurance company, who went back to 1984 in the computerized records, and then back to the early 60's on paper.
They find absolutely no mention of the propane equipment, in any public filing.
Heh heh. Yeah. The Title Insurance Company referred me to a research company (whom they pay to do additional research).
That research company went back to 1984 (computerized records) and found nothing about a propane tank in any public record.
So, from the standpoint of the gob'ament, that tank doesn't exist.
I also went to the planning department at the county level, and, there are no permits for that tank to be put in, but they said they might not have been required when it was put in (they're required now if you CHANGE the location).
He first provided a glib response that nobody taxes residential propane tanks. They ignore them on sight. Ummm... OK.
I then asked for an upgrade to the person answering, and got a county *residential* adviser who first tried to convince me that a tank is a repair, and as such is not taxed.
Allright. I asked for another guy - but I was stuck with this one.
It took me a while to get him to understand that replacing a rented tank with a rented tank, or, replacing an owned tank with an owned tank isn't what I was asking ...
The tax question I was asking was: Q: What is the residential tax consequence when a rented propane tank is replaced by an owned tank (costing roughly $3,000 to $4,000).
He said he'd get back to me.
PS: If someone is paying taxes on it, that's part of ownership (in California, taxes are part of the adverse possession clause).
You might want to ask in the legal groups but it seems to me that you could attempt an adverse possession case if your ownership was continuous for at least 5 years AND you paid your taxes on time.
New California Law Raises Bar on Establishing Ownership Through Adverse Possession April 2011
formatting link
Adverse possession is accomplished when a party acquires ownership to another's real property, without compensation, by holding the property for a specified period of time in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights.
Open Possession? means undisguised and conspicuous possession of real property that is generally known or recognized.
?Exclusive possession? means that the person possessing the land must be the only one occupying the property ...
...a party must occupy the real property hostilely, openly, exclusively, and continuously for a period of five years and pay the property taxes on the land.
?Hostile possession? does not mean ill will or actual enmity, but rather is actual occupation or possession of the real property, without the permission of anyone claiming title, and claiming ownership (either express or implied).
AB 1684 amends California Code of Civil Procedure §325 by requiring that the adverse possessor *timely* pay all taxes associated with ownership of the real property.
I can offer only my same experiences in similar situations, and as in one size does not fit all, here goes.
Basically, the best first thing to do is to call the local supplier(s). Those would be the people who you will be dealing with on an ongoing relationship to come and fill the tank, make sure it is up to snuff code wise, and inspection wise.
I am familiar with high pressure vessels, and vessels containing various gases from my welding expertise. Ownership of said vessel may not be what it appears, and by that I mean that if a dealer "owns" a vessel, and has been renting/leasing that vessel to a homeowner, they still retain legal ownership. It does not matter to the legal owner that the possessor of such item "sells" it to another person, that person may not be legally capable of "SELLING" such an item. It would be like selling a leased car. IOW, the seller of the house may have been "selling" something that they did not own, such as a leased water treatment system, or other things that may be in the possession of the homeowner, yet be owned by another person.
In such a case, the seller was obligated to divulge to you under disclosure laws that certain item(s) were not the seller's to sell.
Which brings us back to the starting point. And that is .......... call the company who "may" own the tank, and explain to them the situation. That you want to do the right thing, although the seller might have not. They will want your future business, and I would think they would give a little ground here, wanting your future and ongoing business.
You are in a bad place here, possibly insisting that property that is actually "stolen" from the legal owner is in your possession, which may be the case. Do not insist on yours "rights", and "possession is nine-tenths stuff.
I think that if you approach the company with the right attitude, that they should do the right thing, want your future business, and work out a solution.
If you read the OP, which you included with your post he's been there and done that. About 3 years ago when he bought the house, he chose a supplier, they came out and inspected the tank before starting service.
Again, we've been through all that a dozen times already.
Again, if you read the thread, the company who he thinks likely owned the tank has been bought by the company who he has had servicing the tank for the last 3 years.
And why exactly is that? He's had a tank for 3 years that he believed was his. No one came to claim it. Surely when the previous owner discontinued gas service that company should have known enough to come get their tank if they wanted it back. He hasn't hid the tank, it's sitting there in plain sight.
Further, the company that he chose and has been using has now bought the original company. They were there recently for another service issue and while there the service guy looked up the tank in their records, which presumably now include records of the original company, and told him that was who owned it. So, if the service guy is correct, the current company owns it and knows about it.
Meanwhile he's had a tank for free for 3 years and so far the company hasn't done anything about it. They might, if the service guy goes back and reports it, etc. But if they do, so what? What "bad place" exactly is he in?
possibly insisting that property that is
Why shouldn't he insist on his rights? Good grief. I suppose he should go down to the police and turn himself in, when he's done nothing wrong.
They have his business. He apparently has their tank. They know it. I don't see any compelling need for hime to do anything unless someone else initiates some kind of action, eg starting to charge for tank rental.
What professional ever told you that the tank was yours?
This too is not parallel to your situation. The previous owner would not have paid for cement. He would have paid a builder for the whole house and the builder would have paid a cement contractor who should have paid for the cement. At any rate, the previou owner paid once for his house including the driveway and the cement.
You've never paid at all for the tank. Do you think your house would have cost less without the tank? No it wouldn't have.
No I would NOT. I bought the property with a clear title - a title search did not turn up any liens on the property - everything on the property is MINE because "I" paid for it
No I do not. He may have bought it and given it to the previous owner and now wants it back. I have clear title to the property and everything that was included in the sale (everything that was left by the originak owner). The only possible exceptions would be motor vehicles still registered in their name - and there is a VERY strong case for them being treated as "abandoned" and gaining ownership through a "warehousemen's lien" - likely require publishing in local paper and or paper where the registered owner was last known to reside stating your intentions (depends on state or province where you live)
- or possibly just an afidavit that it was part of the property when you purchaced it.
Now as fae as the TANK - if it is rented it should have been stated so on the agreement of sale - just like a rented furnace or water heater. I would contact the "registered owner" to find out if ownership may have been transferred and just not registered (things like that happen occaisionally) and when it was last tested/certified. Apparently the original company has been purchased by his new supplier? Fo they have records? If it is due for recertification or is close to expiry THEY don't want to "own" it because thenTHEY are responsible for recertification or disposal. They'd rather let YOU look adter that . One reason why renting a large pressure vessel can be preferable to owning it - just like fuel tanks at a service station. I don't think I would ever buy a service station where the tanks were NOT owned by the oil company. Owned AND INSURED by them!!! That way if they leak they are responsible for remediation.
I know propane is different - but there is still a liability there.
The property where the garage I did my apprenticeship at was located was a 2 or 3 acre plot in the middle of town. The tanks were owned and there was a plume of oil under the property - even affecting a creek in a culvert under it. The property sold for a dollar. Removing the contaminated soil cost millions (but had to be done to excavate for the foundations of the new building - reducing the "penalty cost")
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.