Which legal argument is stronger in the case of this 1,000 gallon propane tank?

[Alex Gunderson]

I ask which of the arguments below is the stronger?
1. The propane tank was abandoned five years ago, hence mine; or,
2. The propane tank was sold with the house, hence mine.

Situation:
I bought a California home about 5 years ago, "as is" at a short sale.

Since it was a short sale, I never once spoke to the owners of record,
but only with the bank and the real estate agent. I believed at the time
that all items that came with the house were mine, including the huge
1,000 gallon propane tank which feeds the integral heating system.

After I moved in, I entered into a propane service contract with
company "A", vouching for the fact I owned the 1,000 gallon propane tank.
I currently pay only for the fuel delivered (i.e., there was no tank-rental
fee to company "A" because the tank was not owned by company "A").

Fast forward five years, and company "B" is bought by company "A".

A workman (who was inspecting the property on an unrelated work order)
remarked that the propane tank was actually owned by company "B" based
on the serial number stamped on the tank.

That is where we stand today.

Given this revelation, I "expect" company "A" to lay claim to the
propane tank, which, I feel is rightfully mine by virtue of at least
one of the two arguments initially stated, in addition to the
fact that "I" never entered into any legal agreement with company "B".

But, what "I" think doesn't really matter.
What matters is, I suspect, legal case law and precedent.

QUESTION:
Would you kindly advise me which of the arguments are strongest?

[John Levine]

>Given this revelation, I "expect" company "A" to lay claim to the
>propane tank, which, I feel is rightfully mine by virtue of at least
>one of the two arguments initially stated, in addition to the
>fact that "I" never entered into any legal agreement with company "B".
>
>But, what "I" think doesn't really matter.
>What matters is, I suspect, legal case law and precedent.
>
>QUESTION:
>Would you kindly advise me which of the arguments are strongest?

What kind of deed did you get, warranty or quitclaim?

It's probably quitclaim, which means you only got whatever bundle of
rights the seller owned. If it wasn't their tank, it isn't your tank.

If it was a warranty deed, you can in principle at least go after the seller.

Also, did you get title insurance? If so, it might cover this.



--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[slide]

On 9/25/2013 9:09 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
>
Unclear ownership of propane tank. OP wants to assert that due to one of
two arguments, the tank is his.

>
> QUESTION:
> Would you kindly advise me which of the arguments are strongest?
>

You aren't compelled to choose one argument nor should you. Familiarized
yourself with arguing in the alternative. Here's an article for you to
read about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

[Barry Gold]

On 9/25/2013 8:09 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> I ask which of the arguments below is the stronger?
> 1. The propane tank was abandoned five years ago, hence mine; or,
> 2. The propane tank was sold with the house, hence mine.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. If you want legal advice,
see a lawyer and pay for it.

Both of these have merit, but both have potential flaws. I'll start
with the second -- sold with the house. This has to do with the law of
what is called "fixtures". Anything that is "permanently" attached to
real property generally becomes part of that property and passes with
ownership of the property. "Permanently" generally means you can't
remove it without damaging the property. For example, a dishwasher that
is sitting on the floor and connected to the kitchen faucet by hoses is
not a fixture. All you have to do is unscrew the hose and wheel the
dishwasher away on a handtruck or furniture dolly.

But if a dishwasher is "built-in", so that removing it leaves a big hole
in the cabinet -- and especially if you have to break something to get
it loose -- then it's a fixture and is part of the property.

I've never seen a 1,000 gallon tank, a tank that can hold 1,000 gallons
(and is thick enough to hold propane under pressure) doesn't strike me
as very portable. Is it bolted to the concrete? Partially buried in
the ground? Or is it just sitting on top of a concrete pad (or directly
on the ground) where all that's needed is to unscrew the hose leading to
the heating system, put jacks under it to lift it up, and cart it away?
All of these can affect the status of the tank.

As a general rule, you acquired whatever rights the previous owner had
in the tank. If he owned it, it is now yours. But as a general rule,
one cannot sell what one does not own. If he was only renting the tank,
then you get only the right to continue possession until the end of the
rental agreement. Even if the tank still belongs to company "B", you
would have a fairly good claim against the previous owner for failure to
disclose that he didn't own the tank. If the seller can't be found, you
might also have a claim against the real estate agent/broker who managed
the sale.

This strikes me as a problem for your title insurer. The general good
advice to anybody buying real estate is to buy an owner's Title
Insurance policy. That way, if something like this crops up, where
something that appears to be part of the land isn't, you can go to your
title insurer and ask them to straighten it out. Either they should
hire the lawyers to argue it out with company "A", or they should
compensate you for the fair market value of the propane tank.

Now, for the first claim. Simply leaving a tank in place while they
continue to service it doesn't necessarily constitute abandonment.
Still, you might acquire ownership (or permanent use rights) under the
theory of "adverse possession" and/or "prescriptive easement". But that
depends on the laws of your state. In some states, the time required is
as little as 5 years; in others, as much as 20 years.

If there is enough money involved in this, I'd suggest you see a lawyer
-- one who specializes in real-estate law -- lay out your situation, and
see what he says.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

> Situation:
> I bought a California home about 5 years ago, "as is" at a short
> sale.
>
> Since it was a short sale, I never once spoke to the owners of
> record, but only with the bank and the real estate agent. I
> believed at the time that all items that came with the house
> were mine, including the huge 1,000 gallon propane tank which
> feeds the integral heating system.

What do you mean, "came with the house"?

> After I moved in, I entered into a propane service contract with
> company "A", vouching for the fact I owned the 1,000 gallon
> propane tank. I currently pay only for the fuel delivered (i.e.,
> there was no tank-rental fee to company "A" because the tank was
> not owned by company "A").

Is the propane tank in the ground? Can it be easily detached? Or
is it somehow attached to the property other than by a hose that
can be easily removed?

> Fast forward five years, and company "B" is bought by company
> "A".
>
> A workman (who was inspecting the property on an unrelated work
> order) remarked that the propane tank was actually owned by
> company "B" based on the serial number stamped on the tank.
>
> That is where we stand today.

If the tank was not firmly attached to the property, I believe
there is a three year statute of limitations. Since it's been more
than that, they don't have much of a claim. But it depends.

Check with the Secretary of State and see if there was a UCC-1
(like a mortgage but for personal property) filed with respect to
the tank. You will have to know the name of the people who owned
the house before you. If there was, you'd need to find the terms
of the agreement that put the tank there in the first place.

> Given this revelation, I "expect" company "A" to lay claim to
> the propane tank, which, I feel is rightfully mine by virtue of
> at least one of the two arguments initially stated, in addition
> to the fact that "I" never entered into any legal agreement with
> company "B".

May or may not. More information is required.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Alex Gunderson]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:24:08 +0000, John Levine wrote:

> What kind of deed did you get, warranty or quitclaim?

> Also, did you get title insurance? If so, it might cover this.

The title company just told me it's NOT a quickclaim deed.
They call it a warranty deed (aka a grant deed).

They said they do not think the above-ground tank is covered
by them because they think it's "personal property".

They did say there is no easement for access to that tank
on the title.

They said they'd get back to me (and are sending me a copy of
the title) so I may have more information soon and will
certainly let you know.

If you have questions for me to ask the title company, please
let me know what to ask them.

The property sale "closed" 4.5 years ago.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:54:57 +0000, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> What do you mean, "came with the house"?

I bought the house in a short sale 4.5 years ago so I never once
spoke with or even met the previous owner. I never even met their
real estate agent, although I spoke with him over the phone.
There was no home inspection (since the sale was "as is").
The previous owner never once mentioned the propane tank.
It is not mentioned in any disclosures.
There is no rental agreement mentioned.
There is no "bill of sale" for the propane tank.
It just "came with the house".

> Is the propane tank in the ground?

The huge propane tank, like the telephone wires, and the power lines,
is above ground. It's something like ten or so feet long and four
or so feet in diameter (my rough estimate). It's not something anyone
would miss seeing. It hasn't moved since I bought the place.

> Can it be easily detached?

Yes. With the right equipment.

The above-ground lines from the pressure regulator to the the
tank can be unscrewed. At that point, the tank can be removed with
appropriate equipment (it probably weighs many hundreds of pounds).

You need a special license because I called the police to see if
someone can come and take it and they told me that it's a felony
to move a propane tank filled with propane so *I* can't move it;
but I would presume someone with the right license can move it.

> Or is it somehow attached to the property other than by a hose
> that can be easily removed?

It is sitting on blocks on the ground. It is only attached to the
house by virtue of pipes that go underground into the house from
the tank to the house.

The propane is used for the hot water heater, kitchen range,
BBQ grill, pool heater, central heating, clothes dryer, etc.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:54:57 +0000, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> May or may not. More information is required.

Be forwarned, here is "more information" (it's all I know).

The house was bought in a short sale where I never once talked to the
original owners (and don't even know where they live now).

Since it was an "as is" sale, I didn't have a professional home
inspection, and, since it's California, no lawyers were involved (Yes, I
know ... this is why you involve these pros).

Nowhere on the papers I signed is the 1,000 gallon above ground propane
tank attached to the house listed (nor are the satellite dishes attached
to the roof mentioned for that matter, nor the power and phone lines
attached to the house, etc.).

There are easements attached to the title, but none for access to the
propane tank.

Nowhere on the propane tank is identifying information other than a
welded-on steel plate showing a company of manufacture, a date, and a
serial number (among other tank-related numbers).

When I entered into an agreement with my propane company,
they said they could only fill their tanks or my tanks but not third party
tanks.

They asked for an affidavit that I owned the tank, which I gave them,
since I did not have a bill of sale for the propane tank from the previous
owner.

My propane company has been filling this tank for the past 4.5 years.

Fast forward to yesterday, when I had a technician for the propane company
inspecting the new BBQ setup - when he remarks out of the blue that the
tank is owned by my propane company because they bought six months ago
another propane company who said it was their tank.

I was incredulous. The guy went over to the tank and compared serial
numbers and said that the tank serial numbers match.

This shocked me, as, I had believed, up until this point,
that I own that tank by virtue of buying the house.

Now I wonder WHO owns that tank.
So, I google.
I'm not the first person to ask.
But - MOST answers don't deal with the details.

For example, most answers say it's like stolen property; they use the
example of a car parked in the driveway of a house that was sold. But this
isn't movable property. It's attached to the house. And it wasn't stolen.
And it was not there by mistake.

Others use the example of the telephone pole sunk into the ground for the
power and phone; but again, those are monopolies where you have no other
alternative than to use the exact same company for your power and
telephone (at least here it's that way).

Some use the example of rooftop solar panels where there is a contract
that is attached to the title - but in this case, there was no attached
rental contract for the propane tank.

Some use the example of a rented party tent, but, in that case, it would
be pretty obvious that the tent would be nearly worthless by this time,
4.5 years later.

I couldn't find a California legal reference on how long an abandoned
propane tank is considered to be forfeited; but I did find this North
Carolina reference which says that, in NC,
a propane company must REGISTER the tank if they want to prove the
ownership:
http://www.ncagr.gov/standard/LP/LPgasConcerns/ConsumerConcernsAndFAQs.htm#Delivery5

With this in mind, I called the county planning department, who said they
did register a permit to put the propane tank in when the house was built,
but, that they never record the serial number of the actual tank that is
put in.

I called my title company, who said it was not covered by them.

The title company suggested it might be a matter of "personal property",
in which case they suggested I contact my real estate agent.

My real estate agent looked at the previous owner's disclosures and said
it wasn't disclosed, either way (likewise with the satellite dishes on the
roof).

So we don't know but can "presume" the previous owner had a rental
agreement with *their* propane company which was only recently bought by
*my* propane company.

Note: The property is not gated, and there are no dogs, so, the original
owner "could" have (physically) taken the propane tank at any time.

SUMMARY:
The key question is how long can personal property such as an above-ground
propane tank stay physically attached to a house before it reverts in
ownership to the homeowner? Is it immediately after sale? 1 year later?
5 years later? Never?

[Alex Gunderson]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:58:32 -0600, slide wrote:

> Familiarize yourself with arguing in the alternative.

I read the referenced article with interest.

What I think you're saying is that I can posit more than one
argument, even if they're mutually exclusive, that concludes
the same thing.

This is good advice.

I guess my first argument (strongest?) could be that the tank
could have been removed and taken at any time by the company who
owned it; since they didn't take it for a period of over 4.5 years,
the tank reverts to my ownership, especially since I'm openly using
it and they knew where it was all this time.

My second argument, perhaps weaker, could be that the propane
tank was attached to the house and therefore was sold with the
house, even if it wasn't actually owned by the previous owner
who was (apparently) renting it at the time, as perhaps, the
rental contract expired or the previous owners rental contract
doesn't apply to me because I never entered into any agreement
with the previous owner's propane-tank rental company.

I think that's an "argument in the alternative" ...

What could we improve on my argument in the alternative above?

[Alex Gunderson]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:32:41 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:
> Anything that is "permanently" attached to real
> property generally becomes part of that property

It's clear (to me) that this tank "can" easily be disconnected by anyone
because it's just connected from the tank to the regulator by a pipe
fitting, and then from the regulator to a pipe, and from that pipe to
the house (underground).

It probably can't easily be *moved* but certainly with the right kind of
truck and license, it can then be taken away. The property isn't gated.
There are no dogs. I'm not home most of the time. So, the original owner
could have taken it at any time, at least they physically could (I have
no idea if they "legally" could).

> I've never seen a 1,000 gallon tank, a tank that can hold 1,000 gallons
> (and is thick enough to hold propane under pressure) doesn't strike me
> as very portable.

They can move them on trucks that have winches. You or I would never
have that kind of equipment though.

> Is it bolted to the concrete?

No. It is NOT bolted down. It is sitting on concrete blocks. Gravity
holds it in place. The only physical connection to the house is via a
thin 1/4 inch copper pipe that connects to the top of the propane tank
by a screwed on fitting which can easily be unscrewed.

> as a general rule, one cannot sell what one does not own.

It appears, only belatedly, that the original owner of the house likely
had a contract with a propane company which was not disclosed to me.

This propane company was recently bought by my propane company six months
ago. Yesterday, a workman (inspecting the BBQ) mentioned that the tank is
actually owned by them (I was incredulous) because, he said, the serial number
matches the serial number on the tank owned by the company they bought.

> If he was only renting the tank, then you get only the right to continue
> possession until the end of the rental agreement.

It appears that the previous owner was "probably" renting the tank.

> You would have a fairly good claim against the previous owner for

> failure to disclose that he didn't own the tank. If the seller can't
> be found, you might also have a claim against the real estate agent

> who managed the sale.

I called my real estate agent who is checking the paper work as we speak
to see if it was mentioned.

I do remember going over the paperwork with a fine-toothed comb, and,
while there were easements for the power lines, there were no easements
nor mention of the propane tanks in all our paperwork (just like there
was no mention of the satellite dishes and the dishTV agreements).

> This strikes me as a problem for your title insurer.

I called the title company. They said I have a "grant deed". They said
they don't think this is covered because they think it's "personal
property".

If it is personal property, they said there might be a law stating
how long it has to be left abandoned before it's mine. They said there
could also be a registration process with the county that lays claim
to things like this - but they suggested I go to a legal resource
(which is why I'm here). :)

> Now, for the first claim. Simply leaving a tank in place while they
> continue to service it doesn't necessarily constitute abandonment.

I'm sorry if I was not clear. The company that apparently owned the
tank has NEVER serviced the tank since I bought the property 4.5 years
ago.

However, that company was BOUGHT by my current propane company six
months ago (according to the service technician). So, the service
technician said, my company now owns that tank as of the date of
their purchase of that company.

> you might acquire ownership (or permanent use rights) under the theory of
> "adverse possession" and/or "prescriptive easement".

Thanks for that advice.

I looked up "adverse possession" & "prescriptive easement" in California:
dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/California-Adverse-Possession.pdf
glawgroupapc.com/update/April2011-Courtside-Newsletter.pdf
troutmansanders.com/files/upload/Prescriptive%20Easements%20in%20California.pdf

My quick summary of each is the following:

ADVERSE POSSESSION in CA:
Person A owns land that person B is openly and continuously using for 5 years
and person B is also paying the property taxes on that land for those 5 years.

PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT in CA:
Same as above, with the exception of the property taxes, in which case the
court can prescribe an easement to allow person B to continue using the land.

Since this isn't "land", I am not sure whether these two rules apply?

> If there is enough money involved in this, I'd suggest you see a lawyer

I suspect we're talking, maximum a few thousand dollars (maybe 3K?)

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

> I couldn't find a California legal reference on how long an
> abandoned propane tank is considered to be forfeited; but I did
> find this North Carolina reference which says that, in NC,
> a propane company must REGISTER the tank if they want to prove
> the ownership:
> http://www.ncagr.gov/standard/LP/LPgasConcerns/ConsumerConcernsA
> ndFAQs.htm#Delivery5

In California I'd think that any registration would be done with
the Secretary of State, by form UCC-1. You should contact that
office to see if one was filed. If so, the tank may belong to
them.

On the other hand it may not. Even if there was a filing, my
recollection is that the Uniform Commercial Code says that personal
property sold in the ordinary course of business is sold free of a
lien created by a UCC-1. I don't know off the top of my head
whether that would apply in your case.

> My real estate agent looked at the previous owner's disclosures
> and said it wasn't disclosed, either way (likewise with the
> satellite dishes on the roof).

It's the previous owner you should really talk to at this point.

> So we don't know but can "presume" the previous owner had a
> rental agreement with *their* propane company which was only
> recently bought by *my* propane company.

If he did, in order for the lessor to retain its title to the
property, filing a UCC-1 may have been required.

> SUMMARY:
> The key question is how long can personal property such as an
> above-ground propane tank stay physically attached to a house
> before it reverts in ownership to the homeowner? Is it
> immediately after sale? 1 year later? 5 years later? Never?

It depends. As I said before, it should be three years after a
default by the person whose custody it was in. For example if it
was on a long term lease and the lease payments were made once each
year, it would be three years from the last lease payment that was
missed. If lease payments were considered part of the fuel
payments so that your ordering fuel from the same company included
lease payments, the three year time would never start to run.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[slide]

On 9/27/2013 4:03 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:

>
> My second argument, perhaps weaker, could be that the propane
> tank was attached to the house and therefore was sold with the
> house, even if it wasn't actually owned by the previous owner
> who was (apparently) renting it at the time, as perhaps, the
> rental contract expired or the previous owners rental contract
> doesn't apply to me because I never entered into any agreement
> with the previous owner's propane-tank rental company.
>
> I think that's an "argument in the alternative" ...
>
> What could we improve on my argument in the alternative above?
>

In all states I know about real estate transactions, a house/property is
sold conveying (among other things) all 'appurtenances' (attachments).
Your description of that tank makes it seem to me to be an appurtenance
which, unless specifically excluded from the sale, would convey title of
it to you.

If the gas company executed an agreement with the previous owner which
kept title of the tank to the gas company, you have lost your rights to
it. You can demand to see any of those agreements. If they exist, you
have a case against the previous owner for not disclosing that the tank
wasn't owned by him at the time of the sale.

What I'd suggest is you assert the tank is an appurtenance and then it's
up to the gas company to disprove it by producing those documents which
maintain its title position.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> I guess my first argument (strongest?) could be that the tank
> could have been removed and taken at any time by the company who
> owned it; since they didn't take it for a period of over 4.5
> years, the tank reverts to my ownership, especially since I'm
> openly using it and they knew where it was all this time.

It's not that the ownership reverts to you, but that the statute of
limitations has passed on their ability to sue anyone to get the tank
back. It appears that is what occurred in this case.

> My second argument, perhaps weaker, could be that the propane
> tank was attached to the house and therefore was sold with the
> house, even if it wasn't actually owned by the previous owner
> who was (apparently) renting it at the time, as perhaps, the
> rental contract expired or the previous owners rental contract
> doesn't apply to me because I never entered into any agreement
> with the previous owner's propane-tank rental company.

Based on what you said, the tank likely did not become part of the
real estate. Depending on exactly how your contract read, it may
have been (but probably was not) sold to you by the former owner.
But if the former owner had no right to sell, his selling it to you
would be meaningless anyway.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Alex Gunderson]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:18:14 +0000, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> In California I'd think that any registration would be done with the
> Secretary of State, by form UCC-1.

Googling, I had found this California cite but I can't find any mention
of propane tanks with respect to UCC-1 filings:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/faqs.htm

There is a phone number: 916-653–3516 which I will call Monday and
report back what they tell me regarding the time for abandonment to occur.

> It's the previous owner you should really talk to at this point.

I'd have to hire a private eye to *find* the previous owner.
Even so, it's highly likely they'll tell me to go take a hike.
Or, that they rented it from somebody (which I can easily assume anyway).
So, I'm not sure what hiring someone to find the previous owner will tell me.

> If he did, in order for the lessor to retain its title to the property,
> filing a UCC-1 may have been required.

I'll call the Debra Bowen, Secretary of State tomorrow to ask how to tell.
916-653-3516

> it should be three years after a default by the person whose custody it

> was in. ... it would be three years from the last missed lease payment

That's a very good point! Since it was a short sale, I would assume the last
missed lease payment would be *many* months before I bought the house. A
datapoint which leads me to that conclusion was the fact that the mailbox
and inside drawers were filled to the brim with collection notices when I
bought the house.)

> If lease payments were considered part of the fuel payments so that
> your ordering fuel from the same company included lease payments, the
> three year time would never start to run.

Except that I never entered into *any* agreement with the company that
reputedly originally owned the tank. My propane supplier bought that propane
supplier. But that time where those two companies merged seems to be after
the 3-year period had expired.

Given this new helpful information, I will try to find out when the lease
defaulted for the original owners, and, if 3 years has transpired since.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:24:54 +0000, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> It's not that the ownership reverts to you, but that the statute of
> limitations has passed on their ability to sue anyone to get the tank
> back. It appears that is what occurred in this case.

Thank you for clarifying that point.

What I need to find out is the "statute of limitations" for their ability
to sue me for buying a house that had their tank connected to it.

I think this UCC-1 form *may* be central to that statute of limitations;
so I will discuss it with the California Secretary of State on Monday
and report back.

> But if the former owner had no right to sell, his selling it to you
> would be meaningless anyway.

I understand. So, likely, the argument that the tank came with the
house is not a tenable one.

[nos...@isp.com]

On 26 Sep 2013, Alex Gunderson said and asked in substance:

> I bought a California home about 5 years ago, "as is" . . . .
> I never . . . spoke to the owners of record, . . . only with the

> bank and the real estate agent. I believed at the time
> that all items that came with the house were mine, including
> the huge 1,000 gallon propane tank which feeds the integral
> heating system.
>
> After I moved in, I entered into a propane service contract

> with companyA, vouching for the fact I owned the . . . tank.
> and pay only for the fuel delivered . . . . [Recently, company
> A bought companyB.] . . . . A workman . . . inspecting the
> property on an unrelated work order remarked that the
> propane tank was actually owned by companyB based on the

> serial number stamped on the tank.
>

> [ If companyA claims that by reason of its acquisition of
> companyB it owns the tank and also bearing in mind that I
> never had a contractual relationwhip with companyB, I wonder
> which of these two arguments would be stronger: ]

>
> 1. The propane tank was abandoned five years ago, hence
> mine; or,
> 2. The propane tank was sold with the house, hence mine.
>

> Would you kindly advise me . . . .

Advise you? If based solely on what you say and ask, the only advice
as such on which you ought rely is do not interpret any response to
your query as if it is legal advice and consult a currently
knowledgeable and practical attorney in your area if you really want
and especially if you will need legal advice.

Also regardless what intellectually the "strongest" answers in your
favor arguably may be, your query is puzzling as a practical matter.
It not that your questions are unreasonable per se. They are not. It
is just that your injection of reports of your not legally relevant
because only unilaterally experienced mental and emotional states
(e.g., what you "believed" and are "incredulous" about) suggests that
you pose your, What's the 'strongest' argument? questions less as a
way to solicit and formulate responses to presently merely conjectured
not yet made claims than to deflect yourself from answering for
yourself what you relegate your news group readers to guessing
probably is your actually principal concern.

That is, you apparently speculate about would be arguments in response
to claims which, if made, would be asserted in a manner you cannot yet
know rather than frontally addressing whether, if companyB does or
realistically is about to make such claims -- e.g., for payments you
want to avoid making for what it says is its propane tank? -- and then
also says that it disagrees with the "strongest" answer you proffer
(whatever it may be), you will have chosen to risk it carting the tank
away or you becoming embroiled in uncertain and costly litigation
instead of negotiating a tank rental fee and continued delivery of
propane fee with companyB or another propane gas company in the area
if there is one.

But for purposes of general discussion and to suggest some
considerations you may want to discuss with an attorney if the adverse
claim you anticipate appears about to become a reality and you need
legal advice:

There is an obvious initial question begging aspect of your query. You
begin by soliciting confirmation from your readers of the correctness
of what you say was your belief when you purchased your residence and
land on which it is built that the sale included the propane tank,
i.e., that that is the meaning and effect of the purchase/sale
contract. But you have not posted any of the probably relevant
provisions of that contract or even a clearly accurate paraphrase.

This can be important because even if that agreement does not
specifically list the tank as an included item of sale, it may
contain language that has that effect. But, maybe, not. So assessing
which of these alternatives applies really does require the person who
would advise you knowing all that contract's applicable provisions and
not merely a lay conclusory characterization of them.

Insofar as that contract possibly may be relevant in some way to your
desire to amass a rhetorical arsenal of arguments, a related issue you
raise but so far prevent dependably analyzing arises from you
mere/conclusory statement of belief -- namely, that you haven't
actually explained other than by reporting that belief why you assumed
the tank was included in the sale. That is, contrary to your belief,
that the tank was a "huge" a piece of equipment on the property would
alone signal to someone reasonably inspecting the property that
inquiry whether it would be included in the sale/purchase or belonged
to someone other than your seller.*
------------------------------------------------------------
* Since you indicate you did not ask one way or the other
and if you are challenged about what you say you believed
at the time of the sale/purchase, a related question of
proof in this connection may become what if anything you
then to confirm the correctness of your asserted belief.
For instance, one might want to know whether you confirmed
before your purchaser that it was generally prevailing
custom/practice in the geographical area for homeowners
to buy and own rather than lease propane tanks of the
size and purpose in question. However, if there was not
a general such practice and instead a predominant practice
of leasing, that could become important in determining
what you reasonably should have believed at the time.
(And, by the way, I'll politely pretend to believe what
you say was your then belief about the tank, but you
asserting this in a negotiation with companyB nonetheless
elicit combative laughter.) And if litigation does eventuate
in which the area's custom/practice becomes relevant to
prove, it may be much easier, less expensive, and more
credible for companyB than for you to do this.

The facts I've so far seen you post anyway make less clear that your
contract with the prior owner (the prior resident? a bank which
acquired the property by way of foreclosure and which may not have
known the relevant facts in this connection?) is even (or is more than
minimally) relevant; since, obviously, even if that agreement did
specify that the tank was included as property being sold to you, one
cannot tell from what I've so far read from you that your seller ever
owned it so as to be able validly to sell it to you.

Another and indeed key issue both of fact and of law of which you seem
only insufficiently aware is whether there is a probably compelling or
even plausible basis for you to claim that before and when you
purchased the property the propane tank had become a "fixture" of and
therefore an integral part of the real property as that term is
defined in part by statute (Calif. Civil Code 660) as construed and
applied by decisional law.

But although you redundantly characterize it as "huge" (redundantly
because it is unlikely that there is any measurable difference between
a "1,000 gallon" and a "huge 1,000 gallon" such tank), what you have
not yet read you as having said is that it is buried underground or
otherwise so immovably and permanently affixed to and therefore so
integrated with the land or at least with the residence that it ought
be deemed an integral part of the reality rather than personalty --
undoubtedly an especially important question if it merely sits on the
surface (or on some sort of framework on the surface) of the land and
is connected to the house only by easy to remove and cap piping and,
perhaps, also an also easy to remove or cap electrical connection.

However, if I recall correctly, the state's decisional law is still
influenced by what is in effect a comparatively strict, i.e., hard
evidentially to overcome presumption against integration of
personalty. For instance, the lead and I believe still followed case
concerned a large organ that was built into a residence including by
structurally rearranging the house's walls but after the owner who
installed it left it behind when vacating the property it was claimed
not to have become a fixture so that the new owner of the property was
unsuccessful in claiming ownership as against another party which
claimed it owned the organ.

And apart from back-and-forth argumentation you implicitly raise the
question, Might companyB resort to self-help if there is a not
mutually resolved dispute between you and it and it is unconvinced by
your strongest argument? For instance, if the propane tank on your
property is on the surface of the land next to instead of in and
permanently attached to a structurally enclosed basement under the
residence, then, whether it seems "huge" you or not, you also have not
said that an appropriately configured truck with a comparatively a
small crew could not easily detach and cart it away. Nor have you
said what you might do if companyB says it declines to provide you
with further propane.

(Granted, however, that if companyB does resort to such self-help,
then of course you may litigate to your heart's content, and pocket-
book's ability, whether it damaged you because of a trespass onto
your property or whether it owes you a tank storage charge despite
your affidavit; etc., etc.)

Abandonment: In case of not mutually resolved disagreement, you very
probably will find some generalized and in (small) part seemingly
comforting to you principles of law but also arguably inconsistent
decisional application of them. Except, perhaps, for one principle
that is more or less consistently applied -- namely, that in/for the
sorts of litigated contexts arguably most relevant to the potential
one you ask about, (apart from disputes about more or less personal
items such as, e.g., an asserted lost then found by another wallet
with cash inside, an assertedly discarded television, etc., which
supposedly are covered by statute), whether there has been abandonment
of personalty is almost always determined in contested litigation as
an issue of fact so that, even if one party's argument of law is
claimed to be the "strongest" in principle, it can take time consuming
and expensive litigation to resolve that issue if the other party does
not acquiesce and aggressively litigates instead.

Nor more basically in principle have you posted facts beyond a few
years delay that suggest the sort of intentional generalized
relinquishment of ownership required in litigation to sustain an, It
was 'abandoned! claim.

Moreover, you seem to suggest that you would contend at most that the
tank's owner abandoned it in favor of your property's prior owner, in
particular, or (despite your affidavit?) in favor of you, in
particular. However, should the need arise, one will find
comparatively clear legal authority to the effect that a showing of
abandonment requires proof of a generalized divesture of ownership of
the property in contention such that it could have been freely
acquired by anyone, i.e., in a manner such that the owner was
indifferent to whoever might claim it so that, correlatively, a claim
that that property was relinquished for the benefit of an identified
person generally defeats rather than supports a claim of abandonment.*
------------------------------------------------------------
* Of course, however, you indicate that you do not know
and have not asked whether companyA had sold the tank
to the property's prior owner so that it is at least
speculatively possible that it became yours when you
made your purchase from that party. And aside from
a remark by a worker/technician, who presumably did
not know what companyA's/companyB's records do or
do not show, you cannot yet know whether (regardless
what serial number is on the tank) companyA did or
did not sell it to your predecessor or, if there still are
any, what companyA's records show about this subject.
And maybe companyA/companyB do not have any such
records. So these too can be issues about which you
may litigate if the occasion arises, albeit at perhaps not
insignificant expense.

In sum, even if you had posted more information than I've so far seen,
there always remains a gap between the arguably strongest
rationalizations one may assert in favor of a particular result and
what will occur if an adverse party resorts to self-help or an
unresolved dispute results in contested litigation; and if one would
be correct to guess that you pose less law-analytical than (probable)
COST -vs.- (probable) BENEFIT questions, then the starting point of
inquiry may be less your, What's the 'strongest' argument? question
than becoming aware that, if it doesn't just resort to cart it away or
other self-help if there is a not compromised/settled dispute between
the two of you, the time, effort, and dollar costs of litigating with
companyB may be less of an imposition on it than on a homeowner who
posts his legal research questions to Internet news groups.*
------------------------------------------------------------
* Since you relegate your posting's readers to speculation
about what are and may become relevant facts, an example
of other self-help alternatives, also admittedly speculative
at this point, might include not only companyB declining to
sell and deliver more propane to you if you and it do not
reach a mutually acceptable accommodation but also other
propane gas companies in the area if there are such
declining to do so as well. Such (sub rosa) arrangements
between competitors are of course not unheard of. And
also of course, it is virtually impossible to prove such
arrangements when so doing becomes important. So this,
too, can become the subject of litigation albeit in contexts
of the sort to which you refer only in a largely perverse
and fruitless way.

But I really do mean what I first said: I suggest the above SOLELY for
the purpose of suggesting that you discuss these sorts of matters with
a currently knowledgeable and practical lawyer in your area. Therefore
nothing I say above is intended as criticism of what I've so far read
from you though with one qualification I've indicated, namely, that a
"strongest" argument often can take one only so far and that when
there is an impasse much more information including what one is
prepared to do as a practical matter is required than you provide in
an Internet news group.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:34:47 -0600, slide wrote:

> In all states I know about real estate transactions, a house/property is
> sold conveying (among other things) all 'appurtenances' (attachments).
> Your description of that tank makes it seem to me to be an appurtenance
> which, unless specifically excluded from the sale, would convey title of
> it to you.

A few "appurtenances" that remained with the house were the satellite
dishes, which are _still_ on the roof (since nobody came to take them
and I'm not risking my neck to remove them) and the WiFi antenna (which
also is on the roof, so, it's staying there even though I have no idea
who owns it).

There were some dish-TV boxes inside (that we threw in the trash),
and of course, there were garbage cans (which, since there is only
one garbage company, we have an agreement with).

Likewise, there is a power pole & telephone connection; but again, we
have an agreement with the same supplier, so, we're likely bound by
whatever that agreement says.

Only in the case of the propane tank and antennas do we not have
an agreement with the reputed owners of the equipment; but none
(to date) have sent us anything stating ownership either way.

> What I'd suggest is you assert the tank is an appurtenance and then it's
> up to the gas company to disprove it by producing those documents which
> maintain its title position.

I will call the company on Monday that made the tank to see whom they
sold the tank to. If it's the gas company, then that would be indicate
that the gas company probably did at one point own the tank.

Then, it would be back to the statute of limitations to sue me for
it, I would think. So, it's crucial that I figure out the statute
of limitations for that process - and specifically how to determine
when that time period starts.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:09:53 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

UPDATE:

To provide an update, I called the California Secretary of State
Debra Bowen, at 916-653–3516(5=ucc)(4=info)(0=human):
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/financing-statement.htm

She said that the UCC-1 is only for commercial-to-commercial recordings,
but that I could run a pseudo-free wildcard search by address or previous
owners last name at the California Business Portal "UCC Connect":
https://uccconnect.sos.ca.gov/acct/acct-templogin.asp

This wildcard search shows the following information:
Filing Number, Filing Date, Lapse Date, Last Name, First Name, Middle Name

Unfortunately, you can't run that wildcard search by address,
so, there are *many* hits with similar names; so I'm going to have to look
up the middle initials of the previous owners.

However, the Secretary of State said that personal property of a
non-commercial nature would be recorded at the county recorder's office.

I was almost sorry I called them, because getting information from them
was almost as hard as it is on a USENET post since all they had was
their unsubstantiated opinion.

Anyway, what they did tell me is that I could run a free search at their
computers but they could not tell me anything over the phone nor is that
search on the Internet.

They said they've never heard of anyone recording a propane tank and they
suggested I call the planning department - to which I told them I already
called the planning department who said there was a $250 permit fee to put
a tank in when the house was built and there was no serial number or
ownership recorded, and there never would be.

In addition to this information above, googling incessantly turned up a
few similar stories - but all delved less deeply than I into the facts
with the exception of perhaps this one on abandoned property - which was
hard to figure out their conclusion as it was filled with what-ifs:
May I keep a propane tank that came with property bought when lease on
tank had ended?, 04/28/2011 - Abandoned Property CA #24744
http://answers.uslegal.com/abandoned-property/24744/

This article "REAL PROPERTY ISSUE: Can they take equipment (propane tank)
from my property if my contract says I own the equipment?" purports to
answer the question:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/real-property-issue--can-they-take-equipment--prop-1340149.html

But, we already know that propane tanks are considered personal property
in most states, including California:
http://www.lawrenceyerkes.com/html/rmx-article-real-vs-personal-property.htm

Perhaps the most apropos references were post #34 and #36 here:
http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/239558-united-propane-st-leonard-robbing-us-again-4.html
But that was for Maryland, and, the circumstances are slightly different.

At this point, it seems this thread is the most comprehensive on the
Internet for how to legally determine ownership of an above-ground propane
tank whose ownership was unclaimed for a period of 5 years after a sale -
so I will try to do my best to put the relevant information here so that
the NEXT person with the same problem doesn't go through an insane amount
of hogwash just to get to what appears to be a simple question with a
simple answer.

Note: I'm still waiting for the original tank manufacturer to report
back with the name of whom they originally sold the tank to.

[dpb]

On 9/30/2013 1:40 AM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
...

> Given this new helpful information, I will try to find out when the lease
> defaulted for the original owners, and, if 3 years has transpired since.

And do what even if so?

I'd wager either

a) the present supplier will just continue as is, or

b) if the new owner is pushy about it they'll check up and find you
don't have a current lease and tell the present company whom they now
own to execute a lease or quit filling it.

You going to spend the $$ it'd take to fight them over the fact it was
their tank to begin with and get a court order proving it defaulted to
you by the previous lessee's failure against just paying a new lease?

--

[Alex Gunderson]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:36:26 -0400, nospam wrote:

> Advise you? If based solely on what you say and ask, the only advice as
> such on which you ought rely is do not interpret any response to your
> query as if it is legal advice and consult a currently knowledgeable and
> practical attorney in your area if you really want and especially if you
> will need legal advice.

The title company sent me to their "property office" who sent me to their
"title advisors".

That third guy pretty much said this comes up all the time. There is no
lien on record. There is therefore no claim to the property. They said,
paradoxically, that it's a "fixture attached to the house".

If it didn't belong to the house, the seller's real estate agent had
the "duty to disclose" that fact.

That he didn't means that, if there is a subsequent loss to me, there
is grounds for a claim against either or both the seller's real estate
agent, or the title company.

However, the title company reiterated, there exposure is if they "missed
a recorded lien". At this point in time, there is no lien against the
house (other than the mortgage).

So, they said, that it clearly is "my" tank at this point in time,
until proven otherwise, by virtue of the fact that it was a fixture
attached to the house.

[micky]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:56:16 +0000 (UTC), Alex Gunderson
<Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

>
>I do remember going over the paperwork with a fine-toothed comb, and,
>while there were easements for the power lines, there were no easements
>nor mention of the propane tanks

There's not going to be an easement for the propane tank. No propane
company has the right to drive up to your tank. But if you want
propane, you'd better let them. Get it?

[micky]

To the NG, my friend in Delaware has a 500 or 1000 pound tank, but I
haven't checked what's done around here, there, or elsewhere. I would
have expected a metal tag firmly affixed to the tank, "Property of ABC
Propane Company, Phone nnn-nnn-nnnnn. Notify before moving." not just
a serial number, which no homeowner is in a position to know means the
tank is rented and not owned. Doesn't the absence of such a label
put the OP in the position of a BFPV?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 06:40:07 +0000 (UTC), Alex Gunderson
<Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

>
>Given this new helpful information, I will try to find out when the lease
>defaulted for the original owners, and, if 3 years has transpired since.

How are you going to do that? By looking through the drawers at old
collection notices? Okay. (The previous owner didn't take anything
when he left?)

By calling the gas supplier? That will open a big can of worms. All
you know is that an employee noticed the serial number on the tank.
You don't know if he remembered to tell anyone. You don't know he
even planned to tell anyone. All he did was remark. And if he did
tell someone, how do you know he told the right person? And if the
right person ever found out, how do you know he's going to do anything
about it? Maybe they think it's too late, but if you go snooping
around, they will ask themselves the same question again and may
decide it's not too late.

>From the beginning I've thought you were a bit too worried about
something that may never happen.

You'll have plenty of time (correct me folks if I'm wrong) to get this
info after they notify you they want the tank back. They're not
going to just take it without warning you. (correct me folks if I'm
wrong). For one thing, they don't want the tank. They want to use
the tank to sell you propane, and they want to rent the tank to you.

If you call them now, they will just say, We don't have time to search
our records for no good reason. OTOH, if they ever sue you, you'll
have the right to discovery.

And if they wait another year to do something, it will be another year
later. Calling them may well speed things up.

When you look at your future, almost anyone's future, more than 3/4s
of the problems headed your way will never reach you.


BTW, if anyone ever does move it, I think they will pump it almost
empty first, so it won't be nearly so heavy. I'll bet any flat bed
truck for towing cars will carry it. Actually, it weighs about 4200
pounds even when full. Barely more than my car. Less than some heavy
cars. But they'll still probably empty it.


Elsewhere you say:
1

>There were some dish-TV boxes inside (that we threw in the trash),

What a waste. I would at least have called the DISH company and left
the boxes outside where they could pick them up.


2

>I will call the company on Monday that made the tank to see whom they

Why are you wasting their time? Wait until you're sued.

>sold the tank to. If it's the gas company, then that would be indicate
>that the gas company probably did at one point own the tank.

What are you going to do with this info before you're sued, anyhow? If
the tech who looked at your tank told the boss his company owned the
tank, that's what they're going to go by and that and other info will
determine if they claim it or not.


3

>Note: I'm still waiting for the original tank manufacturer to report
>back with the name of whom they originally sold the tank to.

Oh, you already called them. Did it occur to you that they may
call you or send you a letter saying the tank was, as you suspect,
sold to Company B, and they may call or send a copy of the letter to
Company B at the same time. Who do they have a stronger
relationship with, you or Company B? Who gives them money, you or B?
Who do they like personally, you or the people who work at B?


3

>I was almost sorry I called them, because getting information from them
>was almost as hard as it is on a USENET post since all they had was
>their unsubstantiated opinion.

An unnecessary wisecrack. You've gotten plenty of good information
here, wise ass.

You're bothering your real estate agent, the title company, the Sec.
of State, the County Recorder, the Planning Dept., the company that
makes the tank, and us, all for something that may never happen, and
isn't worth much money anyhow.

Six companies, at least six people, plus us, for your "problem".

And frankly if they do get their tank back, remember that you got a
bargain on the house because of the previous owner's misfortune and
the bank's misfortune too.

It's likely the propane company wasn't able to pay adequate attention
to the status of its tank because too many people weren't paying their
propane bills and they had to lay off staff, like my friend who runs a
business with many clients has had to do in about the same time frame.
So you want to profit from their misfortune too.


Be a man, call up the propane company, tell them you have their tank,
and that you'll be glad to pay the rent on it.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:54:57 +0000, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> What do you mean, "came with the house"?

I just found out why the bulk of the confusion is in the definition
of REAL property versus PERSONAL property.

In California, it's pretty clear propane tanks are taxed as
REAL PROPERTY, e.g., http://www.calproptax.com/1proprty.html

In other states, propane tanks are considered PERSONAL PROPERTY.
For example, in NJ:
http://www.lawrenceyerkes.com/html/rmx-article-real-vs-personal-property.htm

We find that the propane industry argues vehemently that they feel
propane tanks, in California, should NOT be classified as REAL PROPERTY:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ip99052.pdf
"Industry, the Western Propane Gas Association, disagrees with staff's
recommendation. Industry believes butane and propane tanks should be
classified as personal property."
[versus historically being classified as "improvements" by the state]

Yet, clearly, California classifies (and taxes) above-ground propane
tanks as REAL PROPERTY.

Also, we find a huge amount of the confusion on the status of propane
tanks is directly related to the fact that they are UNIQUE. Even the
industry argues they are unique - and should be treated as an entity
upon themselves, for a variety of reasons, as explained here:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ip99051.pdf

So, in summary, a HUGE amount of the confusion here is that California
treats above-ground propane tanks as REAL PROPERTY and that all examples
fail to adequately explain the treatment of propane tanks, except
the actual treatment of propane tanks for what they are. Propane tanks.

[Eddie Powalski]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:09:53 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

> 2. The propane tank was sold with the house, hence mine.

Most people don't realize that, in California, propane tanks
are considered real property.

Hence, unlike most states, the tank is part of the property.

Then, in the absence of any other evidence of ownership, it's
reasonable to argue that the seller gets to include the tank
with the sale of the property, and that the title insurance company
is on the hook if a court rules otherwise at some future date.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:54:02 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

> we already know that propane tanks are considered personal property

I only belatedly figured out on my own that this is an untrue statement!

Apparently, in CA (and NY?), the above-ground propane tanks are
considered real property.

In all other states I queried, they're considered personal property.
That's why the UCC-1 is needed in most states; but not in California
(since the UCC-1 is for personal property).

This simple but key distincion of how California views propane tanks
seems to be why there is all this confusion about the status.

They're real property in some states, and, the exact same setup is
personal property in other states.

Also, there is absolutely no example that equates to how propane
tanks are treated in all states, hence another source of confusion.

This explains why all the examples proposed so far (e.g., cars,
electricity, telephone, garbage, etc., were clearly *not*
equivalent examples!).

These examples might apply in some states; but they don't in California.

In fact the Western Propane industry argues vehemently that propane tanks
are unique, and that there are no parallels (which I've come to
appreciate, since I can easily shoot down any example anyone provides).

However, the state of California seems to think the following are
equivalent: water softener tanks, butane tanks, propane tanks,
coffee makers, soft drink dispensers, water coolers, cardboard box folding
machines, sorters and medical test equipment.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ip99051.pdf

Yet, the Western Propane industry group clearly says propane tanks are
unique in that the propane tank itself is not consumed by the lessee. In
fact, the lessee of a propane tank cannot touch or handle the tank in any
way, by law. Propane tanks are unique in that they are often located on a
lessee's property, but cannot be used or "consumed" by the lessee, unlike
gas tanks and water tanks.

Interestingly, for NY state, propane tanks are apparently capital
improvements to real property (as in California):
"The issue raised is whether the installation of certain liquid propane
gas tanks constitutes a capital improvement to real property"
http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/advisory_opinions/sales/a81_10s.pdf

Yet, in Tennessee, propane tanks are personal property:
http://statutes.laws.com/tennessee/title-67/chapter-5/part-5/67-5-501

In Missouri, the propane tanks are clearly personal property:
http://www.stc.mo.gov/pdf/078_CHAPTER7.8PROPANETANKS.pdf

In Alabama, propane tanks are considered personal property:
http://jeffconline.jccal.org/taxassessor/main/realvspersonal.html
http://jeffcointouch.com/jeffcointouch/departments/TaxAssessor/TaxAssessor/rvsp.html

Given that most states consider a propane tank personal property,
yet, others (e.g., CA and NY apparently) consider it real property,
that now explains *why* there is no need to file the UCC-1 in California.

It seems that, in the states where the tanks are personal property,
the UCC-1 needs to be filed; however, the UCC-1 is apparently meaningless
in states where the tanks are considered real property.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/real-property-issue--can-they-take-equipment--prop-1340149.html
http://www.ncagr.gov/standard/LP/LPgasConcerns/ConsumerConcernsAndFAQs.htm

This key distinction between personal property laws in California and NY
versus most of the other states explains away all the confusion.

Only in the personal property states do you need to file the UCC-1 to
maintain your claim on propane tanks:
https://www.secretary.state.nc.us/ucc/

[Barry Gold]

Still unanswered is _how_ the propane tank is connected to the house.
If it's just a rubber hose (or even a metal pipe) that can just be
unscrewed, then it's personal property (chattel) and not "part" of the
house. But if it's securely fastened in some way such that you can't
just take a screwdriver or monkey wrench and undo it, or if removing it
would damage the house or the grounds, then it's a "fixture", and is
probably part of the property.

*If* it's a fixture, it should be covered by your title insurance, or
you could sue the previous owner (if you can find him/her) or the agent
who handled the sale.

But if it's personal property, the propane company may be right and it
could be their property. They might still have to get permission to
come onto the property and remove it, though.

If there's significant money involved, I strongly suggest you consult a
local real-estate lawyer. There are too many variables for us to give
advice, even those of us who are lawyers. And I'm not.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:54:02 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

> To provide an update, I called the California Secretary of State

Furthermore, I contacted the local county Recorder, who said it would
be unusual for someone to record a simple lease for a propane tank,
but that I would be welcome to stop by any time during the day and
run a complementary search on their computers.

This I will do (and report back).

Meanwhile, I did call the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Laws, Rules, and Regulations, i.e., https://www.nationalboard.org/

I contacted their Public Affairs office at 614.431.3204, and I
provided the National Board number, which is stamped (in addition
to the manufacturer's serial number) on every propane tank of this
size.

They told me that it's not mandatory for the ownership to be
recorded in the tank datasheet, but, that they'd look it up for
me to find out who they think first owned the tank after it was
manufactured.

Lastly, as I had mentioned, I spoke with the title company who says
that I should expect to be the owner of the tank by virtue of the
fact it was not disclosed by the seller's realtor, and that it
was not found to have any liens in the record, and that it should
be considered a "fixture attached to the residence", and, as such,
I would have every reason to believe it (still) mine.

[John Levine]

>Note: I'm still waiting for the original tank manufacturer to report
>back with the name of whom they originally sold the tank to.

How about the direct approach of calling the propane company, telling
them that you were suprised to hear from one of their employees that
he thought the tank was theirs, and ask if they believe that they own
a tank with such and such a serial number.

In the not unlikely case that they call back and say, nope, we have no
record of it, you're done. Otherwise you can thank them, tell them
that no records of the tank came with the house, and please send you
copies of whatever they think documents their ownership.

R's,
John

PS: I wouldn't worry about the satellite dishes, since they appear to
have a scrap value of roughly $0, and the satellite company would
likely be happy to leave them there on the off chance that you become
sufficiently annoyed at your cable co to swtitch. I have no idea what
you mean by external WiFi antennas.


--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[deadrat]

On 10/1/13 5:39 PM, Eddie Powalski wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:09:53 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:
>
>> 2. The propane tank was sold with the house, hence mine.
>
> Most people don't realize that, in California, propane tanks
> are considered real property.
>

What this means that in California, counties assess properties by
considering "unmovable" propane tanks as real property, i.e., as
improvements to the property. Without actually knowing the history of
this particular tank, that is likely not enough to declare the current
homeowner the owner of the propane tank.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:40:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

> You going to spend the $$ it'd take to fight them over the fact it was
> their tank to begin with and get a court order proving it defaulted to you
> by the previous lessee's failure against just paying a new lease?

The preponderance of evidence is that propane tanks are clearly
considered real property in the State of California.

There is no record of any lien (going back to before the house was built)
at the county recorders office.

There is no record of any UCC-1 forms being filed at the Secretary of State's
office.

The only lease we know about at this time is the aforementioned
standard Amerigas lease which, we don't know whether a prior owner
signed, which, as has been pointed out quite a few times, is here:
http://www.amerigas.com/residential/pay_billing_terms.htm

[Alex Gunderson]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:08:35 -0400, micky wrote:

> There's not going to be an easement for the propane tank. No propane
> company has the right to drive up to your tank. But if you want propane,
> you'd better let them. Get it?

Actually, Amerigas pointed me to this lease when I asked:
http://www.amerigas.com/residential/pay_billing_terms.htm

They told me, over the phone, that this lease allows them to
come and get the tank anytime if they consider it theirs,
even if the house has been sold to another owner who didn't
sign that lease.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:26:31 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:

> Still unanswered is _how_ the propane tank is connected to the house.

That question was answered days ago, but, unfortunately, because this
is a moderated group, you didn't get the information in time.

We proved days ago that California (and NY) consider such propane tanks
real property, while, paradoxically, North Carolina (and most other
states) consider them personal property.

In all states, they're hooked up exactly the same; so, the question of
*how* they're hooked up is meaningless.

We also proved a few days ago (with references) that propane tanks are
actually UNIQUE in that no other tank owned by a residential homeowner
acts like a propane tank. Not water. Not butane. Not gasoline. Nothing.

So, only propane case law is going to apply to propane tank questions.

But, to *answer* your question, all such above-ground propane tanks
(in all states) are hooked up similarly, to wit, in my county:
A. It must sit on a reinforced concrete pad (codes vary by county)
B. It must be bolted to that concrete pad (tie downs are OK)
C. It must be no less than 25 feet from the residence

And, after that, the following applies (in all states):
D. Brass plumbing (called a "pigtail") is screwed onto the valve
E. The pigtail plumbing goes to a series of regulators
F. Via pipes (usually underground) it enters the house
G. From those pipes, it goes to your appliances (e.g., heaters).

Bearing in mind that in California (and NY), this setup is considered
real property (i.e., improvements to the property); yet, in most (all?)
other states, this setup is considered personal property, one has to
assume the question of how it is bolted in to be moot.

> *If* it's a fixture, it should be covered by your title insurance, or you
> could sue the previous owner (if you can find him/her) or the agent who
> handled the sale.

In California, it's a fixture. In most states, it's not.
We covered all this days ago (with cites).

I'm not sure why the posts are not going through to the moderated
group as they are working fine for all other groups. Too bad.
It wastes your time asking questions which were good questions
which were long ago answered. :(

To repeat what I wrote days ago, the title insurance company went back to
before the house was built, and there is nothing in the county records
showing *anything* about a propane tank. I confirmed this at the county
recorders office, and at the county planning office. The *only* mention
of propane is that the original permit for building the house had a
gas line test. There is no way the house didn't have propane from the
start, so, there was an original tank, and this is a replacement tank
(based on date stamps on the tank itself).

I confirmed what the title insurance search found, although my personal
search at the county records only goes back to 1984 (which is more than
a decade before the existing propane tank was manufactured).

> But if it's personal property, the propane company may be right and it
> could be their property. They might still have to get permission to come
> onto the property and remove it, though.

Again, all this was covered days ago and sent to this newsgroup so I'm
not sure why it doesn't get through the moderators, but, we seem to have
the strange situation of:
- California BOE considers propane tanks to be real property
- The propane company lease considers them to be personal property

> If there's significant money involved

The total cost to be made whole is about $3000 (+/- $5000 due to
inability to capitalize on fluctuating propane fuel prices.

[Eddie Powalski]

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:58:29 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> What this means that in California, counties assess properties by
> considering "unmovable" propane tanks as real property, i.e., as
> improvements to the property.

But who is paying the California real property tax?
The homeowner? Or the propane company?

[Alex Gunderson]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:38:42 -0400, micky wrote:

> Doesn't the absence of such a label put the OP
> in the position of a BFPV?

I had to look that one up: Bona Fide Purchaser for Value

> How are you going to do that?

The only way I can do that is to discuss it with the gas supplier.
I agree. That opens a can of worms that no reasonable person would
want to open under this circumstance.

> if they ever sue you, you'll have the right to discovery.

Understood.

> BTW, if anyone ever does move it, I think they will pump
> it almost empty first

It's my understanding this is the case. However, it is a felony
for *me* to move it because you need a license to transport hazardous
liquids exceeding 600 pounds in the State of California.

> Oh, you already called them. Did it occur to you that they may call you
> or send you a letter saying the tank was, as you suspect, sold to Company
> B, and they may call or send a copy of the letter to Company B at the same
> time.

This is all information that was posted to a.l.m days ago, so I only
repeat the information briefly because it's the moderator's job to
get you this information so that you don't waste *your* time
asking key questions which were long ago answered in detail:

A. The tank was made by Roy E. Hanson Jr. Mfg, 213-747-7514
B. They sold it to Suburban Propane in Whippany NJ
C. The National Board told me it was registered in 1992
D. The local Suburban Propane has no knowledge of that tank
E. They also have no knowledge of service at my address
F. That Suburban Propane office has served my area for 85 years

> remember that you got a bargain on the house because of the
> previous owner's misfortune and the bank's misfortune too.

How does that apply to the legal question of ownership?

[saman]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:09:53 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

> I ask which of the arguments below is the stronger?

> 1. The propane tank was abandoned five years ago, hence mine; or,

> 2. The propane tank was sold with the house, hence mine.

It seems to me that you could attempt an adverse possession strategy
if your ownership was continuous for at least 5 years AND if you paid
your property taxes on time.

New California Law Raises Bar on Establishing Ownership Through Adverse
Possession April 2011
http://www.glawgroupapc.com/update/April2011-Courtside-Newsletter.pdf

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.

[deadrat]

The homeowner, of course. The counties have decided that a large,
unmovable propane tank improves the property, so they can assess a
larger tax. Are you surprised by this? Is anyone?

[nos...@isp.com]

On 1 Oct 2013, Eddie Powalski <Ed...@example.com> wrote:

> Alex Gunderson wrote:
>
>> The propane tank was sold with the house,
>> hence mine.
>
> Most people don't realize that, in California, propane
> tanks are considered real property.

To make this an accurate statement there is a necessary omitted
qualification before the period, namely (in substance if not in these
exact words),

" . . . for the purpose of real property tax
assessments but not for all purposes."

And as far as Mr. Gunderson, who began this thread is concerned in
particular: He posted facts to the effect that the tank on his
property almost certainly is not a "fixture" as that term generally is
construed/applied by the courts nor a part of his realty by way of
principles of accession.

> Hence, unlike most states, the tank is part of the property.

This "Hence" and "part of the property" statement also is incorrect
unless substantially qualified.

A chattel may be "part of the property" for some purposes but not for
others and, depending on the nature of the relevant transactions, may,
for instance, be "part of the property" even as a "fixture" but be
owned by someone other than the landowner.

In other words, when person1 installs personal property intending that
(practically speaking) it shall remain more or less permanently on or
under real property owned by person2, the multi-part question
frequently arises whether there will become a change of ownership of
the chattel by reason of principles of or comparable to accession
(generally speaking) and thus whether there becomes a sufficient
identification of the chattel with the realty so that it might be for
some purposes be deemed realty and for other purposes be deemed
personalty.

A common example is that of a large propane tank which may be on or
under land in an, Its not a 'fixture'! or an, It's a 'fixture'! manner
and, in either case, not be owned by the landowner. In fact, that
sort of thing is quite common.*
---------------------------------------------
* One therefore might wonder whether Mr. Gunderson would
be willing to bet big buck$ that the person who owned and
resided on what is now his property before he bought it was
not party to a contract with the propane tank and gas company
with which that person dealt which contained a provision to
the effect that the tank in (but not buried under) what is
now Mr. Gunderson's yard was not a "fixture" of the realty
and that it was and would remain the property of that company.
And, as it happens, facts he also posted are to the effect that
information on the tank indicates that that company is the
owner of the tank and he also said that that company so
presumably including all its assets recently was acquired by
the company with which he deals.

> Then, in the absence of any other evidence of ownership,
> it's reasonable to argue that the seller gets to include the
> tank with the sale of the property, and that the title insurance
> company is on the hook if a court rules otherwise at some future
> date.

Anyone can argue anything. But Mr. Gunderson posted facts to the
effect that he does not know whether the party from whom he purchased
his property owned the tank, that that seller did not include the tank
in his yard as an item being sold to him, and, as noted, that he knows
who (actually, what company) very probably owns the tank in his yard,
namely, again, the propane gas and tank dealer which supplies his
residence with propane.

As far as whether the Mr. Gunderson's title company will be "on the
hook" is concerned:

Although he has not posted sufficiently detailed facts to enable a
fully informed opinion, he did say that someone affiliated with that
company said to that, in that person's opinion (based in important
part on what Mr. Gunderson had said to that person), the tank in his
yard is covered by his title policy as if it is part of the realty
covered thereby. However, he did not say that that person was
authorized or even apparently authorized to make any commitments
binding on the title insurer and, even if that person was in a
position to bind the title insurer, he also did not say that he has
obtained the commitment mentioned by that person in/by a signed
writing. If he does not has not obtained such a writing, what the
person he spoke with said, is, as the proverbial They says, probably
worth only the paper on which it is painted.

If one nonetheless posits arguendo (and, admittedly, there may be
facts Mr. Gunderson has not yet posted that also would make a reality)
that his title insurer will be "on the hook" if the tank in his yard
is formally determined to be owned by someone else, then -- depending
on exactly what his policy says,information he has not yet posted, and
also on the How?s and What?s of the determination of someone else's
ownership of the tank, which is information not now knowable -- the
question then obviously will be, "on the hook" for exactly what?

More than the insurer merely agreeing to continue to insure the
property? More than reimbursing him for the difference in value of
his property when he purchased it as if there was no 1,000 gallon
propane tank on it compared with the property's value with that (not
new) tank? The difference between the value of his real property
today with and without that (even older/used) tank, a sum perhaps not
exceeding +/- $1,800?

[nos...@isp.com]

On T3 Oct 2013, , Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

> The preponderance of evidence is that propane tanks
> are clearly considered real property in the State of

> California . . .

. . . for some purposes, such as assessing real property or other
taxes, but not necessarily for others.

(See if the esteemed m.l.m. Moderator posts it my reply to Mr.
Powalski sent a few minutes ago.)

> There is no record of any lien (going back to before the house
> was built) at the county recorders office. There is no record of
> any UCC-1 forms being filed at the Secretary of State's office.

Did you also look in the appropriate land records or other office for
whether a copy of your predecessor's agreement (if there was one) with
that person's supplier of propane or a memorandum or it was recorded?

> The only lease we know about at this time is the aforementioned
> standard Amerigas lease which, we don't know whether a prior owner
> signed, which, as has been pointed out quite a few times, is here:
> http://www.amerigas.com/residential/pay_billing_terms.htm

As you are aware and as other have noted, you can if you want ask
Amerigas for this information (one way or t'other).

Since, however, you've made very clear that you do not want to do
this, you also thereby make it unnecessary to discuss the law-formal
ways one may obtain a definitive determination of adverse claims to
personal property as well as to real property.

[deadrat]

Good luck to them with that argument. You're not a party to that
agreement. Which might not stop them from carrying the tank off, of course.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:
> micky wrote:
>
>> There's not going to be an easement for the propane tank. No
>> propane company has the right to drive up to your tank. But if
>> you want propane, you'd better let them. Get it?
>
> Actually, Amerigas pointed me to this lease when I asked:
> http://www.amerigas.com/residential/pay_billing_terms.htm

Did you sign the lease? Did you know about it before you bought the
house? If not, you are not bound by the terms of the lease. If it
wasn't recorded with the county, they can't use the lease against
you.

And even if there were an applicable lease, after more than four
years, they likely can't legally enforce it.

> They told me, over the phone, that this lease allows them to
> come and get the tank anytime if they consider it theirs,
> even if the house has been sold to another owner who didn't
> sign that lease.

They can tell you anything they like. That doesn't mean it's legal.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:
> Barry Gold wrote:
>
>> Still unanswered is _how_ the propane tank is connected to the
>> house.
>

> We proved days ago that California (and NY) consider such
> propane tanks real property, while, paradoxically, North
> Carolina (and most other states) consider them personal
> property.

You may have come to that conclusion, but you certainly didn't
prove it. I checked the California statutes and regulations and
did not find that there was a specific rule on propane tanks.

Where did you find your evidence? I'd love to look at it.

> In all states, they're hooked up exactly the same; so, the
> question of *how* they're hooked up is meaningless.

For most things how they are hooked up is exactly the point in
determining whether they are considered real property or personal
property.

> We also proved a few days ago (with references) that propane
> tanks are actually UNIQUE in that no other tank owned by a
> residential homeowner acts like a propane tank. Not water. Not
> butane. Not gasoline. Nothing.

I didn't see that post. Can you give a reference to an external
source that "proves" that point?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:08:35 -0400, micky wrote:
>> There's not going to be an easement for the propane tank. No propane
>> company has the right to drive up to your tank. But if you want propane,
>> you'd better let them. Get it?

On 10/3/2013 1:45 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> Actually, Amerigas pointed me to this lease when I asked:
> http://www.amerigas.com/residential/pay_billing_terms.htm
>
> They told me, over the phone, that this lease allows them to
> come and get the tank anytime if they consider it theirs,
> even if the house has been sold to another owner who didn't
> sign that lease.

Leases generally run with the property. Except:

1. They need to be recorded (just like a deed) to put subsequent buyers
and lenders on notice that it exists.

2. Your posts make clear that the tank is a "fixture": an improvement to
the real property.

I'd say you have a pretty good argument that the tank is now your
property due to their failure to record the lease. Your posts also make
it clear that there's a pretty good-sized chunk of money involved, so
the bottom line is: you should see a real-estate lawyer.

Now... *If* you are planning to have the same company continue servicing
and refilling the tank, then there's probably no need for you to do
anything unless:
1. You decide to have somebody else service/refill the tank
2. They make noises about wanting to come and take it away (unlikely,
as long as they're getting money from you on the servicing deal)
3. They ask you to sign a new lease. If you sign another lease, that
would ruin your defense that the previous lease wasn't recorded.

If any of those things happen, see a real-estate attorney pronto. Or,
just for your peace of mind, you might want to see one now; it'll
probably cost you $400-500 for a one-hour consultation. Or you might
find one with a loss-leader initial consult (or who will do a half-hour
consult) for less.

Ask around. Start with your own personal lawyer, if you have one. If
you don't, ask your friends and family and business associates (and
neighbors, if you are on chatting terms with any) for the names of
_their_ lawyers. Then call those lawyers up and ask them to recommend a
real-estate lawyer. When you see the same name pop up from several,
that's the go-to lawyer -- call up and make an appointment.

[Alex Gunderson]

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 20:47:21 +0000, Eddie Powalski wrote:

> But who is paying the California real property tax?
> The homeowner? Or the propane company?

I called the county tax assessor's office.
They forwarded me to an appraiser.
The appraiser forwarded me to a residential appraisor.
It took him a looong time to figure out that a rented tank
is not the same thing as an owned tank.

He's gonna get back to me.

[Zajac]

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:58:29 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> What this means that in California, counties assess properties by
> considering "unmovable" propane tanks as real property, i.e., as
> improvements to the property.

Seems to me that for adverse possession to succeed, there was mention
that taxes needed to be paid for a period of five years.

So, if the owner starts paying the taxes on that tank (the county
will be glad to accept them), then the owner can easily claim
adverse possession.

Just a thought on strategy.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> Eddie Powalski wrote:
>> deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> What this means that in California, counties assess properties by
>>> considering "unmovable" propane tanks as real property, i.e., as
>>> improvements to the property.
>>
>> But who is paying the California real property tax?
>> The homeowner? Or the propane company?
>>
> The homeowner, of course. The counties have decided that a large,
> unmovable propane tank improves the property, so they can assess a
> larger tax. Are you surprised by this? Is anyone?

Right as far as it goes. But if the tank is leased, it shouldn't add
any value to the property for property tax purposes, since the lease
has to be paid and the tank will disappear if it isn't. At least
that's the theory.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[dpb]

On 10/5/2013 8:46 PM, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
...

>> ... counties have decided that a large,

>> unmovable propane tank improves the property, so they can assess a

>> larger tax. ...

>
> Right as far as it goes. But if the tank is leased, it shouldn't add
> any value to the property for property tax purposes, since the lease
> has to be paid and the tank will disappear if it isn't. At least
> that's the theory.

And if it weren't (leased, that is) and is on the tax rolls as an
improvement the assessor's office should/will have copy (as should OP)
of that determination and resulting assessment.

That apparently doesn't is further evidence against the argument the
tank wasn't leased originally and hence wasn't property of the previous
owner (which I'd wager was an extremely high likelihood the
complementary likelihood of the tank having been purchased by previous
owner being, imo, near zero).

--

[deadrat]

"Shouldn't"? That's adorable.

The people who assess the property have decided that the propane hook-up
makes the property more valuable. If the tank "disappears," I suppose
the homeowner can ask for a re-assessment.

[Mike Anderson]

How does it affect adverse possesion if BOTH sides are somehow paying
the taxes?

I.e. if the person who owned the property that this tank was setting on
had his taxes raised due to the "enhanced value of the property" AND the
propane company was paying taxes because it was listed in their books as
property, who would win out in an adverse possession claim?

Let's take it another direction as well. John Doe owns a piece of
property and has some sort of arrangement that property taxes are paid
automatically by an accountant and he hasn't even paid any attention at
all to the property (or the accountant...or the bank account it's paid
out of, etc, etc, etc) for 20 years but the accountant has been duefully
paying the taxes all along. He hasn't even been within 1000 miles of the
property for the same 20 years (let's say he was stuck on a deserted
island but no-one pushed to have him declared dead, if you'd like.)

However, I am trying to get ownership of the property and I go to the
tax office every year for 10 years and give them a check for the taxes,
which they accept and do give me a reciept for it (they really shouldn't
be double-dipping like this but........this particular tax collector
isn't the most honest in the bunch.) I've also used the property for
growing corn and wheat the whole 10 years. Who gets adverse possesion
here? (Obviously I'd been using it as if it was mine but we were both
paying the taxes.)

[nos...@isp.com]

On 4 Oct 2013), saman <sa...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Alex Gunderson wrote:
>
>> [<snip> He sez/asks, in substance: In Calif., about
>> five years ago he bought a house and the land on
>> which it sits; there is a propane tank next to his
>> house; he now suspects but does not want to verify
>> whether his propane supplier would claim to own
>> t; and he wonders if there is a way with certainty
>> to establish he owns it preferably before he alerts
>. that probable claimant otherwise that it may be the
>> owner <endsnip>]

>
> It seems to me that you could attempt an adverse possession
> strategy if your ownership was continuous for at least 5 years
> AND if you paid your property taxes on time.

Almost anyone can attempt almost anything; but such an attempt by the
OP almost certainly would fail, and for an obviously basic reason:

Acquisition by way of an adverse possession principles is a remedy in
the state that applies only to real property but the OP asks about a
gas tank in his yard that (he acknowledges) has not become so
intermixed/integrated with the land or with the residence to enable it
to be classified as "real property" rather than personalty.

> New California Law Raises Bar on Establishing Ownership
> Through Adverse Possession April 2011
> http://www.glawgroupapc.com/update/April2011-Courtside-Newsletter.pdf

These are references only to a lawsuit affecting title to real
property, not to personalty.

> <snip> summary of real property "adverse possession"
> related standards including that the claimant prove
> payment of real property taxes for the subject realty
> <endsnip>

As a matter of common law plainly (for some time) codified in the
state, a quiet title action would be available. Although, admittedly,
the state's courts have avoided definitively ruling that this is so,
the law in this respect is quite clear that such an action would be
available [Civ. Code 14(1) and (3) and Code Civ. Proc. 760.010(b) and
760.020(a)]. The OP's postings suggest that he is aware of this
alternative.