[excon]

Hello again, Scott:

I'm not saying that the tank should transfer. Clearly, it should not. But ownership of the tank isn't the issue. Ownership of its contents are. Based upon your conclusion, he would own the propane if he owned the tank. Why would he not, because he doesn't own the tank?

excon

PS> (edited) The tank, no matter who owned it, WAS an attached appurtenance. The attachment does not give title to the tank, because it was leased. But I suggest that it does give title to the propane.

[ScottGem]

The tank, no matter who owned it, WAS an attached appurtenance. The attachment does not give title to the tank, because it was leased. But I suggest that it does give title to the propane.

The leasee would own the contents of the tank. They were leasing the tank for the purpose of storing the propane.

I understand your point and it might go either way in a court. But I'm trying to look at the whole picture here. The Propane company is notified of the change in ownership. The new owner has not entered into a lease arrangement with them for several weeks after transfer of ownership. They are reminded about the change in ownswershp after 2 weeks. More than another week has passed and they decide to disconnect in preparation of recovering the tank. Maybe they should have given notice first, but I can't see that they were not within their rights to protect their property (the tank). They could easily conclude that the new owner was stealing the propane since they did not pay for it.

So, given the full set of circumstances as we have been told it, I definitely don't think the previous owner is liable for anything and neither was the Propane company. Ergo the OP has no case.

[Cvillecpm]

The propane in the bank belongs to whoever paid for it - probably the seller- and the tank belongs to the propane/leasing company.

You need to reimburse the seller or get a new propane provider, have a new tank installed and fill it.

[Fr_Chuck]

Ok, I live in the county and I guess it is a matter of what is considered standard procedures and what is normal and customary in your areas.

It is obvious that you must not have had experience with propane tanks.

The large tanks are normally never "owned" but are always rented and owned by the propane company. Most even have a sticker on them stating this.

And just because it is "on " your property it is not always yours, light poles, in the county outside lights on the poles still belong to the electric company many times ( although some are owned)

But gas in the tank would have belonged to the previous owner, and should have been addressed specificly in the sales contract, as to buying the balance, or having it taken out at purchase.

This was a oversite not covered, and it leaves it vague as to who owned the gas, The previous owner would have a written agreement with the gas company, he owed the gas according to his contract with the gas company.

You would have to pay a tank deposit most likely, a connection fee and a fee for the gas in the tank, This should have been expected, just like hooking up your electric, your water and the such, and should have been done from day one, just like you did the electric.

So I think this is a mistake you made by not understanding and not looking into the gas situation.

I see no case.

[excon]

Hello again:

This has been an excellent discussion. I agree with everybody - the proposition is 50/50. It could go either way.

I think we all agree, that one of the two realtors (or maybe the escrow company?) failed in their fiduciary duty. I also think we agree that he has no case against the seller or the propane company (they owe him no fiduciary duty - although I'm not sure), but he does have a case against somebody.

Who?

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

Yep, if the law was so clear cut that everyone had no debate over it, lawyers would be out of business, and since lawyers write the laws, they like things to have issues, ( talk about job security)

So your real claim, if there is one, would be the value of the gas that was left in the tank, not your fees to connect or fill the tank.

It may or may not be that much money to get to excieted over and should be able to be handled in small claims court.

[ScottGem]

Lets remember what the original question was. The OP was asking whether he could sue the seller for the problems he had with the tank being disconnected.

I think the answer is now clear and that answer is no. As Chuck pointed this should have been covered in the contract. As he also pointed out, the tank is owned by the Propane company so it contents do not necessarily go with the property.

But the REAL key is the tank being disconnected was a mostly a result of the OP not transferring the account to his name. So any losses suffered was due to his own inaction.

[Cvillecpm]

OP should have made a phone call to the propane company during the "due diligence" period of OP's purchase contract... yes, the propane co's name is on the tank and YES, just like fuel oil; buyer needs to pay for whatever has already been paid for by the seller.

OP should have caught this at the inspection
OP's Realtor should have had this acknowledged in the purchase agreement.
Escrow/closing should have had the propane "credit" figure to handle this at closing.