How long can personal property lie abandoned after home sale before ownership reverts?

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 27, 2013, 5:07:26 PM9/27/13

to

Who owns a propane tank left on CALIFORNIA property for 4.5 years?

Specifically, when is an above-ground 1,000 gallon propane tank
considered abandoned in CA, if the company that originally owned
it doesn't lay claim to it for a period of years.

Is it 1 year?
2 years?
5 years?
10 years?
Never?

(Warning: Specific details follow below.)

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?

richard

unread,

Sep 27, 2013, 9:08:29 PM9/27/13

to

I am not an attorney and this is only my opinion.

I would contact the company and ask them to send you a copy of the original
lease agreement.
I am ssuming that there should be a record of facts on file in the county
courthouse, which should include permits and other license fees.
Check that and see who the registered owner is.
You can't just set up that large of a tank without permits.
So that means somebody inspected the work and signed off on it.

If this company truly owns the tank, then where is the paperwork on it?
They have to prove this.

They may know the serial numbers and who made the tank for any number of
reasons. This is not proof of ownership.

As for where the former owner is, where did the real estate agency or bank
send the check to?

As for the satellite dishes, those are considered to be fixures if
permanently mounted to the house and they are yours to do with as you
please.

When it comes to a home, there are certain things that never seem to get
mentioned anywhere, so they get included as part of the package.
Like, do doorknobs get listed?

In my personal opinion, unless the company can show proof that they do in
fact own the tank, it is yours.

naug...@netscape.net

unread,

Sep 27, 2013, 11:38:08 PM9/27/13

to

Ok...

The Deal Here Is: I'm *Thumb-Typing* (Which I HATE Doing) AND Thanks, NO DOUBT, To The Burgeoning WORTHLESSNESS Of iOS 7, Which "HIDES" The Original TEXT From MY View, I Can ONLY Proffer a SHORT ANSWER To THE MAIN QUESTION In Your Multi-Faceted Query...

That SHORT ANSWER Is: UNLESS The "Original Owner" FORMALLY TRANSFERRED Ownership Of The PROPANE TANK To... Ohhhh... THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER, 4.5001 Years Ago, The *CURRENT OWNER* Of Said Tank Is The "Original Owner"...

AND: I Bet $100 RIGHT NOW, That There Is NO PROVISION Of California Law That Provides For The "Adverse Possession" Of a Propane Tank Via "Abandonment" Over ANY PERIOD OF TIME, Other Than PERHAPS 99 Years... Certainly NOT After a Mere 4.5 Years...

So... FUCK "Thumb-Typing"... MORE Tomorrow, From a DECENT KB...

Naughtius "DOUBLE FUCK iOS 7" Maximus

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 27, 2013, 11:45:14 PM9/27/13

to

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:08:29 -0400, richard wrote:

> I would contact the company and ask them to send you a copy of the
> original lease agreement.

Certainly, if my propane company "asserts" that it's their tank
by either charging me for rental or by restricting me from going
to another supplier - I will ask for all documentation necessary.

> I am ssuming that there should be a record of facts on file in the county
> courthouse, which should include permits and other license fees.

I called the county. A permit is needed but they never write down
the owner or serial number of the tank. The guy told me they don't
care who owns the tank as meeting code is *my* responsibility no
matter *who* owns the tank.

> Check that and see who the registered owner is.
> You can't just set up that large of a tank without permits.

The county does not care *who* owns the tank. They only care who owns
the land, and that would be me.

> As for where the former owner is, where did the real estate agency
> or bank send the check to?

I have no idea, but, that was almost 5 years ago.

> As for the satellite dishes, those are considered to be fixures if
> permanently mounted to the house and they are yours to do with as you
> please.

Hmmm.... I don't see how satellite dishes are different than propane
tanks, other than propane tanks cost a lot more. :)

> Like, do doorknobs get listed?

I understand. The propane tanks (and telephone pole, satellite dishes,
etc.) were never mentioned. I was just saying that because people might
ask if it was specifically called out in the disclosures, and it wasn't.

> In my personal opinion, unless the company can show proof that they
> do in fact own the tank, it is yours.

If they assert ownership, I will certainly ask for supporting paperwork.
In addition, I will call the company who made the tank to ask whom they
sold it to.

Bill Graham

unread,

Sep 27, 2013, 11:48:55 PM9/27/13

to

I heard (I'm not a lawyer) that if someone pays the back taxes after some
period of like 3 years, that person can lay claim to the property. But I
don't know if that applies to valuables left on the property or not.

Greegor

unread,

Roy

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 1:57:31 AM9/30/13

to

Check out the thread on misc.legal.moderated

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:04:54 AM9/30/13

to

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:28:35 -0400, David L. Martel wrote:

> I'm guessing that it's a big deal to you for some reason.

Nobody has provided the answer.

I suspect the answer is as simple as a single sentence which states
a legal limit in California for how long property can be left unclaimed
before its ownership reverts to the property owner.

At this point, we don't know whether that time period is as short as 30
days, or if it could be as long as forever.

> The recycling bin comes from the County.

Whom you've likely signed a subsequent agreement with.

> The power and phone lines between the house and the pole are not mine.

Again, whom you've signed a subsequent agreement with.

> My propane tank is clearly marked ...It's not mine.
Again, whom you've signed a subsequent agreement with.

My situation is different:
I never signed any agreement with the reputed owners of the
unmarked and abandoned (at least for 4.5 years) propane tank.
They knew where it was. They knew how to disconnect it from the house.
Yet, they never did come and get it (or even ask to come and get it).

> Did your propane tank have an owner's name on it?

Nope.,

> Did you call and ask them to remove this item?

Nope. I had no way of knowing who the owner was, especially as I
thought *I* was the owner, so I didn't even try.

> What lead you to conclude that the tank had been abandoned?

If there is a statute on how long you can leave property on my
front lawn, then, the length of that statute is what leads me to
conclude that the ownership has been forfeited.

The question in the legal group is how long can one leave an item
on the property of another, without any contract with the owner
whatsoever, and still maintain ownership of that item?

> The fact that your current propane company knows (and has

> records?) of a tank with the same serial number as yours is

> a strong argument that it belongs to them.

I assume there is a statute of limitations for how long you can leave
property on private property before that property is considered
abandoned.

For example, I think, on the ocean, if you abandon ship, it's
the property of whomever wants to board that ship. Right?

Likewise if you throw something in the trash. Doesn't it become
the property of the garbage company instantly?

Similarly when you donate to the Salvation Army. Isn't that couch
instantly the property of someone else the minute you drop it off?

My question is merely whether these kinds of rules apply to a tank
that is left abandoned on someone else's property and no agreement
whatsoever is signed with the reputed owner of that abandoned tank
and the property owner.

Who owns that property (in California) if 4.5 years elapse?

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 3:11:21 AM9/30/13

to

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:31 -0700, Roy wrote:

> Check out the thread on misc.legal.moderated

On misc.legal.moderated, the best we have is to ask the
California Secretary of State whether or not a UCC-1
form has been filed.

So, I will contact them tomorrow (Monday):
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/contact.htm
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/financing-statement.htm
etc.

Even if a UCC-1 has been filed, it is unknown whether the
3-year statute of limitations has expired, or even whether
it would have been in force.

The fact that nobody knows how these things work, even in
the moderated legal group, indicates that I need to ask
a group that has expertise in legal matters.

Googling, I found scores of questions, all of which have
different details, are in different states, yet, almost
all can't come up with a conclusion - and they just die.

Rather than let this issue just die unsolved like all
the others - I will try to see it through its conclusion.

I will then inform the legal groups what the real answer
is, but I do appreciate any pointers to at least figure
it out on my own in the right direction.

Thanks in advance - as the question is clearly unanswered
as yet.

Bill Graham

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 3:19:25 AM9/30/13

to

I suspect that if the property owner finds it, he can assume ownership of
it. But if it is contraband (like a batch of child porn pictures) then he'd
better turn them in to the authorities, or he could be busted for having
them.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 3:58:50 AM9/30/13

to

Here's the state of play as I understand it. You bought a house as-is
on a short sale assuming that the 1000-gallon, above-ground propane tank
on the property went with the house. The sellers are long gone, and
nobody knows anything about the tank. You've been getting your propane
from Company A, having affirmed to them that you own the tank. Company
A buys Company B, and a company A employee tells you that based on the
serial number, the tank was owned by Company B, and thus the tank is now
owned by Company A.

If all that is true, then you don't own the tank. If Company B actually
owned the tank and never relinquished ownership, then the sellers had no
rights to the tank in the first place, so they couldn't sell it to you.
If Company B didn't intentionally relinquish ownership, then the tank
isn't abandoned property. In any case, for you to claim abandoned
property in California, you essentially have to turn it over to the
state and make a good faith effort to find the owner.

It wasn't Company B's fault that the presumed rental contract with the
sellers lapsed. Company B doesn't lose ownership because they left the
tank in place hoping that a new owner would sign a new rental agreement.
Company B doesn't lose ownership even if they forgot about the tank.
It wouldn't be company A's fault if company B didn't keep track of the
tank. Company A owns all the assets of the former company B absent some
exclusions written in the purchase agreement whereby Company A acquired
Company B.

You don't actually say what Company A wants to do about the situation.
Are they charging you a rental fee? If not, then who cares? If they
do, then you can force them to take you to court where you can force
them to prove they own the tank.

Why not talk to Company A and try to reach an accommodation with them?
Perhaps they won't want to go to court over an old propane tank.
Perhaps they don't want to risk your telling them that you're taking
your business elsewhere and that they should pick up their old tank.

But perhaps they're willing to be jerks about the whole thing, in which
case, it sucks to be you. But your other option is to make your lawyer
rich.

*** I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice. ***

*** I am not Dr. Phil, so this isn't even personal advice. ***

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 4:01:54 AM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:19:25 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

> I suspect that if the property owner finds it, he can assume
> ownership of it.

The propane tank is huge, above ground, and connected to
the house, so, if the original propane company owned it
in the first place, they certainly knew exactly where it
was all these years, so, they certainly can "find" it.

I found an almost exact case described here but for MD:
http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/239558-united-propane-st-leonard-robbing-us-again-4.html

It seems, based on that nice description, the title search
should have turned up any liens such as those that would
be found by the propane company filing a California UCC-1
form. http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/

Since that title search didn't turn up a UCC-1 filed for
the propane tank (nor for the satellite dishes, garbage
cans, and other items that came with the house), one has
to assume that the propane tanks are now mine.

Unfortunately, nobody has cited anything that actually
says that - which is why I had asked in the first place.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:55:15 AM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 02:58:50 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> Company A buys Company B, and a company A employee tells you that
> based on the serial number, the tank was owned by Company B, and
> thus the tank is now owned by Company A.

Exactly!

> If all that is true, then you don't own the tank.

Googling, I find there "may" be a statute of limitations of 3 years on
"business" property left at a residence after payments cease of the lease.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/real-property-issue--can-they-take-equipment--prop-1340149.html

I also find there is this form, UCC-1 (uniform commercial code) that
"may" need to be filed so that a title search would uncover this lien.
http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/239558-united-propane-st-leonard-robbing-us-again-4.html

If one or both of those have expired, then, I "may" own the tank.
At least that's what I find out by googling.

> the sellers had no rights to the tank in the first place,
> so they couldn't sell it to you.

At this point, I do agree. The seller didn't sell me the tank, even
if they might have "thought" they were selling me the tank (or, more
to the point, even if "I" thought I was buying the tank).

> If Company B didn't intentionally relinquish ownership, then the tank
> isn't abandoned property.

It seems to all hinge on whether or not a UCC-1 was filed with the
state of California and/or whether there is a 3-year or 6-year
statute of limitations on commercial liens in California.

> It wasn't Company B's fault that the presumed rental contract with the
> sellers lapsed. Company B doesn't lose ownership because they left the
> tank in place hoping that a new owner would sign a new rental agreement.

They might, if the prior mentioned articles conclude correctly that
the law does not favor those who "sleep on their rights," even if
technically they are still within the statute of limitation.
They must have known a long time ago that the original owner's payments
had ceased. Allowing the subsequent sales of the property without
stepping in to say, "Land yes, tank no" could support a defense
based on waiver (intentional relinquishment of a known right) or
laches (sleeping on your rights to the detriment of others, who are
innocent of the plaintiff's claim or potential claim).

> You don't actually say what Company A wants to do about the situation.

I have not heard anything from them.
And I won't be contacting them to stir up the hornet's nest either.

> If not, then who cares?

If the tank is really owned by the company, then I can't switch
suppliers at will. If I can't switch suppliers at will, it could
cost me a dollar or more per gallon of propane, which amounts to
a $1,000 dollars or more per fill.

Also, the company could charge a $120/year rental, which, over a
short period of time, will far exceed the value of the tank itself.

> Why not talk to Company A and try to reach an accommodation with them?

If/when they push the issue, I will want to know where I stand
on my rights.

That's why, now, I need to know the statute of limitations, how to
look up a UCC-1 form filing, why the title search didn't catch this,
etc.

To wait for the war to occur would not be a good defense for person
or company. You begin your defense plan the minute you feel the threat.

> Perhaps they won't want to go to court over an old propane tank.

I would expect that, if my very first conversation with them proves
that I know what I'm talking about, then, I would tend to agree
with you.

However, if my first conversation with them shows I'm totally ignorant
of the law, then they would be emboldened (and rightfully so).

Anyway, I found out, on my own, about the UCC-1 filing search ability,
so I will try to find a way to find out whether or not the form was
filed.

I will also contact the tank manufacturer to find out whom they sold
the tank to in the first place.

I will also contact the California Department of State to find out
what the statute of limitations is on liens that don't show up on
title searches (http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/).

I'll let you know what I find out so that at least the next guy
doesn't have to start wholly from ground zero to figure something
simple like this out.

If anyone actually knew the answer to the questions, we'd be done
by now, so, it must be a rare occurrence in the legal world to
find something on a property that wasn't found in the title searches.

Greegor

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 11:06:28 AM9/30/13

to

Alex Gunderson wrote:
> I suspect the answer is as simple as
> a single sentence which states a
> legal limit in California for how
> long property can be left unclaimed
> before its ownership reverts to the
> property owner.

What your doing is deliberately
seeking "risky shift" or
"confirmatory bias" in your favor.

Usually just called "biased research".

You insist on a simple or absolute
answer to a less simple question and
reject more complicated answers.

That is very often a bad idea when
it comes to legal OPINIONS.

Answering qualifier questions would
be important for a more secure
(but rarely absolute) answer.

For example, keep in mind that the
tank is a means to a contracted
service. How long after you first
purchased the property did you first
have to get the tank refilled?

Was the tank really sitting there
disused for a LONG LONG time?
Didn't you need the propane?

Common sense arguments say that
the propane company is a UTILITY
and is providing you with an ongoing
service, not like a discontinued
or abandoned facility.

There is a question about your
apparent INTENT with your biased
line of reasoning.

What would your purpose be for
arguing that the tank is YOURS
because they abandoned it?

(Even though it was not abandoned)

Something placed on your property
as part of a service does not
become part of that property.

Even if property is disused (by you)
that does not make it abandoned.

Why would you start this argument
that the tank is yours, exactly?

Was your concern that since you
have that tank on your lot, you
are locked into that propane
supplier at a higher rate than
other propane tank filler services?

Is THAT really the reason for
your quest?

Have you asked other propane tank
services what they would charge to
provide THEIR tank if you upset
the contract with this propane service?

My impression is that such a huge
tank would last most people a
long time, and "disused" or not
is up to you. YOU tell them when
it's empty. If you don't call
they assume the tank is not empty yet.

Do you think your legal argument
complies with common sense?

Google: Sharp Practice Of Law

Asperger's syndrome is one of the autism spectrum disorders. ..... Those who are affected tend to a detail oriented, selective perception and ...

live with sensory integration problems

Welcome to usenet!

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 12:08:44 PM9/30/13

to

The first rule of asserting your rights is not to lose more battles than
you fight. You're about to.

You've already decided that if you don't sound like you know the law,
then Company A would be emboldened to take what's not theirs *and*
*rightfully* *so*.

There are likely no liens. Why would there be?

It looks like the UCC-1 form that California tracks is for a lender
recording an interest in property held by a debtor. And all that does
is determine priority of interest.

How much would a new tank cost you? $1200? You couldn't establish your
ownership of the old tank in court for as little as that. Most lawyers
will be happy to defend your interests to your last dime, though. Is
that what you want?

nos...@isp.com

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 12:59:31 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 02:58:50 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
> > Company A buys Company B, and a company A employee tells you that
> > based on the serial number, the tank was owned by Company B, and
> > thus the tank is now owned by Company A.
>
> Exactly!

The rest of your present response to deadrat strongly suggests that
your "Exactly!" is insufficient because you ought said this not only
to his statement above but also to _rest_ of what he said, i.e., to
the substance his posting in its entirety.

> > If all that is true, then you don't own the tank.
>
> Googling, I find there "may" be a statute of limitations of 3 years on
> "business" property left at a residence after payments cease of the lease.
> http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/real-property-issue--can-they-take-equipment--prop-1340149.html

Your "may" when stated in the context of the material at the URL is an
extreme understatement which suggests that you really do not
understand the statute of limitations related aspects of your postings
(which, by the way, almost certainly are the least important aspects).
Further most of what is stated at that link about the statute of
limitations is, on its face, speculative, and also substantially
mistaken while anyway not relevant to the scenario and the concerns
about which you posted.

> I also find there is this form, UCC-1 (uniform commercial code) that
> "may" need to be filed so that a title search would uncover this lien.
> http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/239558-united-propane-st-leonard-robbing-us-again-4.html

This "may" is also hugely understated insofar as the scenario you
describe is concerned. "May not" very probably is qualifier more
relevant to you.*

( * "very probably" only because - as at least you do acknowledge -
you do not know what, IF anything, companyB/companyA will claim/argue
and/or, possibly more importantly for you, do in a manner adverse to
you and because one cannot reliably predict the outcome of litigation
and, in this instance, whether any litigation ever will eventuate )

> If one or both of those have expired, then, I "may" own the tank.
> At least that's what I find out by googling.

I sent a posting to misc.legal.moderated without having seen any
posted responses there or in misc.legal. (It was sent from off-shore
and from a send-only device when/where I had only your original
posting.) I would not have sent it if I had seen deadrat's posting
since (of course in more words) it largely duplicates what he said;
but I will post it separately here with a suggestion that you read and
engage with it since it explains with more reference to California law
issues you ought discuss with a lawyer of your choice. But suffice to
say here that this "may" is _hugely_ understated.

> > the sellers had no rights to the tank in the first place,
> > so they couldn't sell it to you.
>
> At this point, I do agree. The seller didn't sell me the tank, even
> if they might have "thought" they were selling me the tank (or, more
> to the point, even if "I" thought I was buying the tank).
>
> > If Company B didn't intentionally relinquish ownership, then the tank
> > isn't abandoned property.
>
> It seems to all hinge on whether or not a UCC-1 was filed with the
> state of California and/or whether there is a 3-year or 6-year
> statute of limitations on commercial liens in California.

No, your "it" doesn't hinge on whether a UCC-1 was filed. Your "it"
hinges on whether the tank had become a "fixture" to your land before
you purchased it, whereas your follow-up postings show it had not, and
on whether the tank's owner abandoned it, which your follow-up
postings now show almost certainly would not be a claim you would be
able to establish if there was to be litigation between you and
companyA/companyB in which, if companyA was the tank's owner and you
contended it had abandoned it, that was an important issue to be
determined.

> > It wasn't Company B's fault that the presumed rental contract with the
> > sellers lapsed. Company B doesn't lose ownership because they left the
> > tank in place hoping that a new owner would sign a new rental agreement.
>
> They might, if the prior mentioned articles conclude correctly that
> the law does not favor those who "sleep on their rights," even if
> technically they are still within the statute of limitation.
> They must have known a long time ago that the original owner's payments
> had ceased. Allowing the subsequent sales of the property without
> stepping in to say, "Land yes, tank no" could support a defense
> based on waiver (intentional relinquishment of a known right) or
> laches (sleeping on your rights to the detriment of others, who are
> innocent of the plaintiff's claim or potential claim).
>
> > You don't actually say what Company A wants to do about the situation.
>
> I have not heard anything from them.
> And I won't be contacting them to stir up the hornet's nest either.
>
> > If not, then who cares?
>
> If the tank is really owned by the company, then I can't switch
> suppliers at will. If I can't switch suppliers at will, it could
> cost me a dollar or more per gallon of propane, which amounts to
> a $1,000 dollars or more per fill.
>
> Also, the company could charge a $120/year rental, which, over a
> short period of time, will far exceed the value of the tank itself.

It would have been helpful if you had not danced around so as to avoid
acknowledging these concerns when you first posted.

> > Why not talk to Company A and try to reach an accommodation with them?
>
> If/when they push the issue, I will want to know where I stand
> on my rights.

> * * *
> [I]f my first conversation with them shows I'm totally ignorant

> of the law, then they would be emboldened (and rightfully so).

This is of course an entirely reasonable desire and, IF diligently
implemented, also the basis for a good and maybe also productive
negotiation plan. However, to be credible in/for real life
negotiation, misc.legal is not exactly the best source of information.
And so a repeated suggestion:

Assume for the sake of analysis (i.e., even if not fully correctly)
that everything said by all your respondents here and at
misc.legal.moderated that is contrary to your preferences including
what deadrat said and what I say in a companion posting is incorrect
and consult a currently knowledgeable and also, above all, practical
and litigation savvy attorney in your area, and ask her or him to
confirm with specific references to state statutory and decisional law
why at least the key points of such assumedly incorrect statements are
very probably incorrect. In other words, and at the very least, ask
that lawyer to explain to you if s/he can how and why the at least the
substance of what deadrat and what I and others who parallel what we
said are incorrect.

> If anyone actually knew the answer to the questions, we'd be
> done by now, so, it must be a rare occurrence in the legal world
> to find something on a property that wasn't found in the title
> searches.

Here again you make a core practical mistake. Without in any way
retreating from my above stated agreement with your above stated
desire, note that you here elide frequently related questions of which
you are of course aware at least in part but seem to want to avoid
answering for yourself such as:
If despite you having been assured by the World's
Greatest And Most Law-Knowledgeable Jurisprude what (to use your
language) the "strongest" argument in your favor is and/but if
companyB responds that it does not agree, how much will it probably
cost you in time, effort, and dollars to try to redress the
correctness, i.e., to obtain enforcement of, that "strongest"
argument?
How much will those costs and also the uncertainty for
you and potential length in time and effort and dollar expense of
serious litigation probably off-set the "savings" you wish to achieve?
Perhaps not incidentally, why have you overlooked and,
anyway, what will you PROBABLY be able to do/achieve IF - unconvinced
by your strongest arguments or largely convinced but willing to take
the risks of disregarding them - companyB/companyA resorts to
self-help by removing what it contends is its tank?
In such event, would you PROBABLY have sufficient
advance notice to try to obtain preliminary injunctive relief and,
even if so, at what cost/expense and degree of uncertainty that such
an attempt at litigation would succeed?
Have you in a sufficient fact-investigative way
realistically evaluated other potential but perhaps very hard (maybe
impossible) for you to prove forms of self-help by companyA/companyB
might be able to achieve such as, for instance, other propane tank/gas
suppliers in the area declining to deal with you?

nos...@isp.com

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 1:03:31 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

> [ <snip> see companion posting <endsnip> ]

As I said, I would not have transmitted the following to
misc.legal.moderated if I had seen deadrat's summary (or at least I
would have edited the following if I had seen it) but, nonetheless,
suggest you ought read and think about it:

On 26 Sep 2013 [in misc.legal.moderated], 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

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 1:28:58 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:08:44 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> It looks like the UCC-1 form that California tracks is for a lender
> recording an interest in property held by a debtor. And all that does is
> determine priority of interest.

To provide more information, 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.

naug...@netscape.net

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 1:40:40 PM9/30/13

to

On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:55:15 AM UTC-6, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 02:58:50 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
>
>
> > Company A buys Company B, and a company A employee tells you that
>
> > based on the serial number, the tank was owned by Company B, and
>
> > thus the tank is now owned by Company A.
>
>
>
> Exactly!

YES... "EXACTLY"...

Dee-uh-DRAT RARELY, IF Ever, Gives BAD Adv... *OPINION"...

So PAY ATTENTION...

>
> > If all that is true, then you don't own the tank.

I Don't [CURRENTLY] Know *MUCH* About CA Law... What I FORMERLY Could Claim To Have a GOOD GRASP Of Is Fading Under The Weight Of 20+ Years Of DISUSE...

STILL, That FADING Memory, Taken Together With The MUCH MORE "Shop Worn" And "Utilized" LAW Of The State Where I NOW Reside, INFORMS ME Of a Few PERTINENT Facts/Conditions/Precedents AND LIKELY OUTCOMES...

FIRST...IN MY State, LPG Vendors, AS A COURTESY & INDUCEMENT To Customers To BUY THEIR Propane, TYPICALLY Supply, FREE Of Charge, [LARGE] LPG Storage Tanks... I Don't Know Whether There Exists *Substantive* LAW *Criminalizing* The Practice Of Vendor A Filling Vendor B's Tank, But I GUARANTEE You [As YOUR Experience Bears Out] That NO LPG Vendor Will Fill a Tank That Belongs To - Is "OWNED" By - Another Vendor...

SECOND... IN MY State, There Is NO "Working Of Law" That Would Permit ANYONE, [NEW] Land Owner Or Not, To Assert a Claim Of Ownership On ANY Type Of Property From The SIMPLE PASSAGE Of TIME... i.e., That The LIKELY OWNER, "Tom's LPG Service", "Abandoned" Its Property By FAILING To Notify From Time To Time, The "Current Resident" Of 56324 Monte Vista Way, That THEY [Still] Own a Certain 1000gal LPG Tank... I BET $100 Right Here And Now That CA Law Is IDENTICAL [Enough] In That Respect...

THIRD, YOU Appear To Be Trying To *UNFAIRLY ENRICH* Yourself; Seeking Facts To Support Your PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSION To Legally Justify Something Of An "ADVERSE POSSESSION"... FORGET IT... It AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN...

>
>
> Googling, I find there "may" be a statute of limitations of 3 years on
>
> "business" property left at a residence after payments cease of the lease.
>
> http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/real-property-issue--can-they-take-equipment--prop-1340149.html

"Googling" *I* May Find A *LEGAL TERM OF ART*; LONG In Common Use, For The PLOY [Seeking FACTS Of Law To Support The CONCLUSION You Want] You *Seem* To Be Attempting...

FOURTH, The Guy Who COULD RESOLVE This "Problem" Is *McGyver*... I'm MORE Sure Than NOT That *HE?* IS 1) Ensconced In CA 1) IS An ACTUAL, PRACTICING CA Attorney And 3)Has a VAST * *CURRENT* Knowledge Of CA Law *EASILY* At *HIS?* Command...

SADLY, *HE?* May Be On PERMANENT HIATUS From misc.legal, This Group Having Been Gradually OVERWHELMED By The DROVES Of BITTER OLD _DELUSIONAL_ CRANKS WHO HAVE DRIVEN AWAY FRIENDS, FAMILY & ASSOCIATES With Their NEVER-ENDING SHREIKING COMPLAINTS Of [Usually] "Liberal" OPPRESSION, And Hence, MUST SPEW Their RELIABLY _IGNORANT_ Bile Here... Lest They Be Overwhelmed And DROWN In Their Own CESSPOOL Of Ignorance...

I Dunno... MAYBE Set Out a Plate Of Milk n' Cookies With a "PLEASE Mr McGyver?" Tag On It...

FIFTH, YOU Might Wanna Start WORRYING ABOUT What CA Has To Say WRT "FALSE AFFIDAVITS"... AND Start Googling DEFENSES & STRATEGIES To DEFENDING Against That CRIMINAL COMPLAINT...

Just Sayin'...

<YeahNOTGoingOverAllThisAgain{SNIP}>

Naughtius "What Dee-uh-DRAT Said" Maximus

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 1:45:02 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:06:28 -0700, Greegor wrote:

> You insist on a simple or absolute answer to a less simple question and
> reject more complicated answers.

Actually, I firmly believe the answer is simple for someone who
knows the answer.

Clearly most people here (including me) didn't have a clue at the
start of this thread.

For example, the planning department clearly handled the original
permit for the tank installation when the house was new, but, they
clearly did not record tank ownership (as they assume all permits
are the responsibility of the property holder, not the builder).

Just as clearly, when I called the Secretary of State for California,
Debra Bowen, 916-653–3516(5=ucc)(4=info)(0=human), the office had
never heard of anyone registering a UCC for a propane tank, but,
they knew exactly how to search for such a UCC filing:
https://uccconnect.sos.ca.gov/acct/acct-login.asp

The Secretary of State said that personal property of a
residential nature would be recorded at the County Recorders
office - which - when I called them - was a disappointment
because had never heard of such a record for a propane tank.

Nonetheless, even they knew that the standard answer is to run
an in-person search at their office by address, to see what
pops up.

So, the answer "appears" to be simple:

(1) The 3-year statute of limitations has long expired unless
(2) a search at the Secretary of State or (3) at the County Recorders
Office turns up a lien or statement of the property ownership.

I assume this is the case with almost all California residential
propane tanks - but that's why I asked for advice & experience.

naug...@netscape.net

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:09:09 PM9/30/13

to

You SEEM To Be GLOSSING OVER... *CONVENIENTLY FORGETTING*... The MAJORITY OPINION, HERE, And In YOUR iResearch, That "The 3-year statute of limitations" Is *NOT* Implicated In YOUR Circumstance(s); That Said "...3-year statute of limitations" Is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT To YOUR Question Of "Ownership"...

BELIEVE ME... It _IS_ "WHOLLY IRRELEVANT"...

>
> (2) a search at the Secretary of State or (3) at the County Recorders
>
> Office turns up a lien or statement of the property ownership.
>
>
>
> I assume this is the case with almost all California residential
>
> propane tanks - but that's why I asked for advice & experience.

I'm 99&44/100ths Per Cent Sure That "It Don't Make a FUCK How Long That Tank Sat Unnoticed... It Was SET There BY THE OWNER, ACME LPG Vendor, It Was THE VENDOR'S Property THEN - It IS, BY *ACQUISITION,* The NEW VENDOR'S, ACMF LPG LLC's Property, Now..."

What You Should "ABANDON" Is Any PRETENSE... Any SCHEME You MAY Be Forming To Acquire Ownership, Particularly Through a MISINFORMED, MISUNDERSTOOD, SELF-SERVING Application Of Law Which You BARELY COMPREHEND...

Or Do You *ENJOY* Throwing Your Money AWAY?

Naughtius "A FOOL And His Money Are Soon Burned In The Fireplace To Keep Warm" Maximus

nos...@isp.com

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:10:07 PM9/30/13

to

On 27 Sep 2013, Alex Gunderson <Al...@mail.is.invalid> wrote:

> Who owns a propane tank left on CALIFORNIA property for 4.5 years?

When posed in this open-ended fashion, this is not an informatively
answerable question. It is in other words not a realistically posed
question. Real world answers will depend, at the least, on this
information you do not post: where the tank was left by the original
owner ("Mr.1"); in relation to where it was left, who claims to be its
(new) owner ("Mr.2"); whether Mr.2 will have done acts that affect the
applicability of a statute of limitations if that issue becomes
relevant to the Mr.1 and Mr.2 relationship and, if so, what, in
particular, those acts are; whether Mr.1 will have learned of Mr.2's
contention of ownership and, if Mr.1 learns of it, when, then whether
Mr.1 opts by self-help or by negotiation or by litigation to contest
it; what Mr.2 then does (when?) and how.

> Specifically, when is an above-ground 1,000 gallon propane tank
> considered abandoned in CA, if the company that originally owned
> it doesn't lay claim to it for a period of years.
>
> Is it 1 year?
> 2 years?
> 5 years?
> 10 years?
> Never?

In/for the sort of scenario about which you posted, for the reasons I
explained elsewhere in summary form, arguably never or, at least, not
before the times relevant to you as you have stated them.

This questions moreover embeds not articulated but nonetheless real
assumptions. These include most importantly here that someone will
sue someone else in a manner such that the issue of the bar of some
limitations period will become important to decide. However, that
issue would be affected in turn by which party, exactly, sues first
and who, exactly, and what particular claims (a/k/a, "causes of
action") the plaintiff alleges, i.e., in what SPECIFIC litigated
CONTEXT a limitations issue needs to be decided by the court.

But because you acknowledge that you cannot know any of this
information AND because you pose your limitations related questions in
a too open ended fashion so that you even prevent probably reality
related hypothetical questions, these are not intelligibly analyzable
questions.

IN ADDITION and as noted elsewhere, you seem not to have addressed the
kind of scenario re. which any, or at least most, statute of
limitations questions are moot -- in particular, a self-help scenario
(even if that sort of scenario might result in responsive litigation).

So, again, comparatively shop for and ask a currently knowledgeable
and practical including litigation savvy lawyer of your choice to
refute that summary if you are serious.

> [ <snip> see the OP's posting's in this and
> related theread if interested <endsnip> ]

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

Generally speaking, easements are qualified/defined interests in or
rights to use real property and not personalty. Why, then, you seem
to believe that this factoid is relevant to your concern remains to be
explained by you.

> 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).

Especially when/where the tank is large enough to be able to service a
residence's heating and cooking needs (i.e., is not only of a small
size to fuel a barbecue or another only occasionally used cooking
stove) this factoid strongly suggests that a prospective purchaser or
that person's agent inspecting the property with a view towards
purchasing it should and would inquire about the status of such a
tank. Owned by the property's seller? If so, how if at all is such
ownership documented? Leased by the seller? If so, from who?

So, again again, comparatively shop for and ask a currently
knowledgeable and practical including litigation savvy lawyer of your
choice to refute that summary if you are serious.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:16:41 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:59:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

> "Exactly!" is insufficient because you ought said this not only to his
> statement above but also to _rest_ of what he said

I'm sorry if I accidentally wasn't as detailed as possible.
What I said "Exactly" to was that deadrat understood the underlying
circumstances - which is the precursor to further intelligent discourse.

> extreme understatement which suggests that you really do not
> understand the statute of limitations

This may be very true. Based on what people said, the statute of
limitations for unclaimed personal property "appears" to be either
3 or 4 years in California; and, the time period appears to be
extensible with a filing of the claim with the government.

Given that this is something that happens all day every day, it
did come as a surprise to me that nobody actually seems to understand
how this (presumably simple) process works - least of all me - so that's
why I'm still calling government offices and asking questions.

For example, I just now received a call from the tank manufacturer
who told me that the serial number matches to a National Board
number which told him exactly who bought that tank initially.

He said that every propane tank has a unique nationalboard.org
number which will explain the ownership tree. This is critical
information because it appears now that a THIRD company bought
the tank originally, and they bought it BEFORE the previous
owner owned the residence.

> I sent a posting to misc.legal.moderated without having
> seen any posted responses there or in misc.legal.

I agree that misc.legal.moderated appears to be highly
unreliable, with respect to the temporal nature of the postings.

For example, it was DAYS before my post showed up, which meant
that I could not assume it would *ever* show up; hence the
post to misc.legal. In addition, it is further DAYS before any
of my detailed responses have shown up - some of which have still
to this day not shown up. So, it seems that the moderated legal
group moves extremely slowly, almost at the pace of justice.

I assume that, eventually, misc.legal.moderated will catch up,
but, there can be no assurances of same, so, one must look
elsewhere if answers are truly sought.

What "is" shocking though, in both groups, is how little is known
about this seemingly extremely common issue - which is merely that
of a standard piece of personal property being left at a residence
for a period known to be in years - and the obvious question would
be how to establish ownership 5 years later, when neither party
can show proof of ownership in any reliable manner.

What also is as shocking is how little is actually known about
the legal process for proving ownership in such cases, e.g.,
nobody told me about the Department of State UCC registry, nobody
mentioned the County Recorders Office, and nobody knew enough
about the statute of limitations for a common piece of property.

To their credit, people DID know that an above-ground propane
tank is considered real property, and they did know about the
simplest of cases, as when there is an established bill of sale,
and they did know enough to question the actual ownership.

I will take your posting separately, as even I will be spending
time proofreading this post - as I do all posts - as a courtesy
to you, the helpful respondent.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:31:52 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:59:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

> No, your "it" doesn't hinge on whether a UCC-1 was filed.

Just to reiterate, it does not seem that a UCC was actually filed
(against the previous owner), nor does it appear (from talking to the
California Secretary of State) that a propane company "would" file a
UCC in the state of California for personal property left at a residence.

> Your "it" hinges on whether the tank had become a "fixture" to
> your land before you purchased it

We have subsequently established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
a large above ground propane tank is personal property:
http://www.lawrenceyerkes.com/html/rmx-article-real-vs-personal-property.htm

> It wasn't Company B's fault that the presumed rental contract with the
> sellers lapsed. Company B doesn't lose ownership because they left
> the tank in place hoping that a new owner would sign a new rental
> agreement.

They do if the law determines they slept on their rights.
Or that they had failed to register their claim properly.
Or that, even if they had, that the statute of limitations expired.
And, while I don't understand "waiver" and "laches", that may have occurred.

> You don't actually say what Company A wants to do about the situation.

I'm sorry if I was reticent with the details.
My current propane company hasn't said anything yet, other than a
service technician said he'd check their database, because the
serial number and address matches that of a tank that the company
they bought said they owned.

In addition, the manufacturer of the tank told me while I was typing
this up that the tank was sold directly to a THIRD company well before
the previous owner of my residence ever bought the house. So it appears
likely that the owner previous to the penultimate owner actually
installed the tank.

This new revelation makes me need to call the planning department
back to ask WHEN the tank was installed, as that's a critical
piece of new information I just found out today that there is a
company C involved in the ownership.

NOTE: It "could" be that company C sold the tank to Company B who
was bought by Company A - but this would be easy to establish if
I can figure out how the http://www.nationalboard.org registration
system works.

> It would have been helpful if you had not danced around
> so as to avoid acknowledging these concerns when you first posted.

I apologize if I haven't been detailed enough in my answering
of questions. You may note that I've answered EVERYONE who had
an argument, either way - and that I've provided at least a dozen
links and phone numbers - and that I provided all the details that
I've known to be true, or at least I've tried.

So I apologize if this thread fails on the details, even after
all that.

> misc.legal is not exactly the best source of information.

Understood.

> Have you in a sufficient fact-investigative way
> realistically evaluated other potential but perhaps very hard (maybe
> impossible) for you to prove forms of self-help by companyA/companyB might
> be able to achieve such as, for instance, other propane tank/gas suppliers
> in the area declining to deal with you?

No supplier to date has declined to deal with me. In fact, all
will fill a tank if I sign an affidavit stating that I reliably
believe that I own the tank.

The fact that the tank was actually sold to a third propane supplier
gives me the opportunity to research the trail of ownership, as it
may be that this third supplier was bought by the second supplier
who in turn was bought by the first - but I need to establish the
trail of ownership at the National Registry and report back.
http://www.nationalboard.org

David L. Martel

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:36:24 PM9/30/13

to

Alex,

>
>> The recycling bin comes from the County.
> Whom you've likely signed a subsequent agreement with.
>

No, no agreement was ever signed. The County decided to begin recycling.
It mailed an information packet on what could go into the bins, includede a
schedule of pickup days, and distributed the bins.

>> The power and phone lines between the house and the pole are not mine.
> Again, whom you've signed a subsequent agreement with.

I do have agreements with both phone and electricity so that's possible
but there was a gap of a few weeks between buying the house and turning the
phone on. Does that mean I own the wires? I don't think so.

> >> My propane tank is clearly marked ...It's not mine.
> Again, whom you've signed a subsequent agreement with.
>
> My situation is different:
> I never signed any agreement with the reputed owners of the
> unmarked and abandoned (at least for 4.5 years) propane tank.

Why do you believe that the tank was "abandoned". That you haven't signed
an agreement does not mean that ownership passes to you. The tank was
legally installed by an agreement with the previous owners. I'm surprised
that this wasn't handled at your closing. I remember having to pay the going
rate for the propane in the tank at closing. I notified the propane company
by phone of the change of home ownership. They took down my information. and
kept delivering propane. About 4 yrs. later they sent me an agreement.

> They knew where it was. They knew how to disconnect it from the house.
> Yet, they never did come and get it (or even ask to come and get it).

I can't fault you for believing that this unmarked tank was your
property. I don'y understand why you think the propand company was supposed
to remove the tank. Did someone request that?

>> What lead you to conclude that the tank had been abandoned?
>
> If there is a statute on how long you can leave property on my
> front lawn, then, the length of that statute is what leads me to
> conclude that the ownership has been forfeited.

Let's ask the question again. What makes you believe that a propane tank
that was placed on this property quite legally has become abandoned? The
tank was unmarked so you had no easy way to contact the owner. Most likely
the tank owner had no idea that the home had changed hands. So he had no
need to contact you.. Now, how do we get to the tank being abandoned?

> The question in the legal group is how long can one leave an item
> on the property of another, without any contract with the owner
> whatsoever, and still maintain ownership of that item?

>> The fact that your current propane company knows (and has
>> records?) of a tank with the same serial number as yours is
>> a strong argument that it belongs to them.

> I assume there is a statute of limitations for how long you can leave
> property on private property before that property is considered
> abandoned.

Statutes of Limitation are not relevant here, they are completely
different legal matters.
You want to search for abandoned property laws. Googling won't help much,
most of those hits concern landlord-tenant matters. What claim do you have
on this property? You have taken possession of it and are putting it to use.
That might be an argument, I guess.

> For example, I think, on the ocean, if you abandon ship, it's
> the property of whomever wants to board that ship. Right?

No.

> Likewise if you throw something in the trash. Doesn't it become
> the property of the garbage company instantly?

No idea when ownership changes hands but this is not abandonment.

>
> Similarly when you donate to the Salvation Army. Isn't that couch
> instantly the property of someone else the minute you drop it off?

When the owner of the couch gives the couch to an agent of the Salvation
Army, the couch does become the property of the Salvation Army. Once again,
this is not abandonment. I don't see where you are going with these
arguments.

> > My question is merely whether these kinds of rules apply to a tank
> that is left abandoned on someone else's property and no agreement
> whatsoever is signed with the reputed owner of that abandoned tank
> and the property owner.

Why do you think that the tank was abandoned? If you have an answer to
this question I'm not getting it.
I suggest that you spend some money and talk with a lawyer if this
matters to you. Remember that a brand new, shiny, propane tank runs about
$1000-1500, so don't spend too much money chasing this.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 2:39:53 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:03:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

> 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:

If that's the answer to all questions in misc.legal, then why does
misc.legal even exist?

For example, I'm a developer in software, and I am a moderator on the
company's forum site (which is similar, in intent, to an NNTP USENET
newsgroup).

If we said "contact a lawyer" every time the folks looking for advice
asked us a question, we'd have no reason for existing.

What we say is "this is our opinion", or "from our experience"; but,
more to the point, almost always we have tons of experience in the
questions posed - so that's why I'm shocked that this question, which
seems to come up a lot, doesn't have a definitive answer for the
state of California.

For the state of North Carolina, we reported the definitive answer.
Likewise for the state of Maryland.
But, for California, the process of establishing ownership eludes us.

Clearly I'll find out the answer. And, just as clearly, I'll report
back. I might not report back in the moderated group, simply because
the posts appear to not be posted (either forever, or for many days).

So, it's unreliable as a reporting mechanism.

But, knowing how USENET and forums work, and being a moderator of the
rules, I will sincerely "pay it forward" and let people know how
in the State of California, to establish ownership of a propane
tank that is unclaimed for years, and unmentioned in deed, to the
satisfaction of any home owner.

I'm just not there yet with all the answers to this rather simple
question. But that's only because nobody has ever asked this question
before and gotten a reliable answer. It's not because someone doesn't
know the answer. It's just that *I* don't (yet) know the answer.

David L. Martel

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 3:28:55 PM9/30/13

to

Greegor,

I don't think Alex's question is intentionally dishonest. Here's my
guess. Alex bought a house and land. On that land was a hedge, a utility
shed, and a large, above ground, propane tank. Alex assumes that all of
these became his property. So he trims the hedge, puts his garden tools in
the shed and has someone deliver propane to "his" tank. And life is good.
Some years later the owner of the tank shows up. This is where, in my
opinion, Alex gets really flaky. 1)Alex can sign an agreement with this
propane company and get on with his life. 2)He may insist that they remove
the tank and either buy a tank or sign-up with another propane company. This
will be a moderate pain in the butt. 3)Instead he believes that he can win
the ownership in court. This will likely involve time, money, and a lawyer.
Not sure why he doesn't get this.

Good luck,
Dave M.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 4:28:06 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:28:55 -0400, David L. Martel wrote:

> Alex assumes that all of these became his property.
> So he trims the hedge, puts his garden tools in
> the shed and has someone deliver propane to "his" tank.
> And life is good.

Hi David,
I appreciate your clarification as this is a legal issue, not
a moral issue, nor a technical issue. It's simply a legal question
which, if the answer truly is that ownership is maintained in perpetuity,
then nobody can ever sleep at night for the rest of their life,
after having bought a home supposedly free and clear of liens.

> Some years later the owner of the tank shows up. This is where, in my

> opinion, Alex gets really flaky.... he believes that he can win the
> ownership in court.

I don't plan on going to court; and I doubt the propane company
will go to court either, for a tank clearly worth less than $1000.

This is just a legal question. No more. No less.

I just want to *understand* the process for what happens to
personal property left attached to real property for a period
of years in the State of California.

If I can't get an understanding of that on a legal group, then
that would be sad. For anyone to imply that personal property can
be left on real property and remain the property of the original
owner indefinitely belies belief (and, I've shown that there are
statutes of limitations that "may" apply as well as the concept
that the law does not favor those who "sleep on their rights, in
addition to the fact that you can't enforce imaginary liens that
don't seem to exist anywhere in county or state records).

So far, I've determined the following factual events:
What I've established are the following facts:

* Roy E. Hanson Jr. Mfg, Los Angeles manufactured the tank

* Hanson sold to Suburban, who has no record of my address

* Somehow the Heritage Group presumably lay claim to the tank

* Amerigas bought the Heritage Group (& presumably its assets)

* A tech recently implied the tank was owned by the Heritage Group

* There is no mention in the closing papers either way

* The tank had propane & regulators attached at the time of sale

* There are no labels on the tank asserting ownership either way

* After sale, I signed an affidavit stating I owned the tank

* Amerigas inspected the tank and found everything to be sound

* Amerigas has been filling "my" tank ever since

In addition, it's probable that:
* Propane tanks are personal property (i.e., not real property)

* (some) Personal property is subject to a 3-year abandonment SOL

* There is no serial # registered with the building permit

* There is likely no UCC-1 filed with the Secretary of State

* There probably isn't a lien filed with local County Records

* The National Board doesn't contain subsequent ownership info

Homework:
* Wait to hear back from the National Board on official ownership

* Run an in-person search at the County Records for liens

* Still waiting to hear back from the title insurance on liens

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 4:39:14 PM9/30/13

to

There's no such statute. Statutes of limitation give time limits for
commencing legal action.

>
> The question in the legal group is how long can one leave an item
> on the property of another, without any contract with the owner
> whatsoever, and still maintain ownership of that item?
>
>> The fact that your current propane company knows (and has
>> records?) of a tank with the same serial number as yours is
>> a strong argument that it belongs to them.
>
> I assume there is a statute of limitations for how long you can leave
> property on private property before that property is considered
> abandoned.

Abandonment requires intent. You'll have to show that in court.

>
> For example, I think, on the ocean, if you abandon ship, it's
> the property of whomever wants to board that ship. Right?

Very unlikely.

> Likewise if you throw something in the trash. Doesn't it become
> the property of the garbage company instantly?

No, when you put the trash out by the curb, you lose your ownership.

> Similarly when you donate to the Salvation Army. Isn't that couch
> instantly the property of someone else the minute you drop it off?

Of course. That's a gift, not abandoned property.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:08:07 PM9/30/13

to

On 9/30/13 1:36 PM, David L. Martel wrote:
> Alex,
>
>>
>>> The recycling bin comes from the County.
>> Whom you've likely signed a subsequent agreement with.
>>
>
> No, no agreement was ever signed. The County decided to begin recycling.
> It mailed an information packet on what could go into the bins, includede a
> schedule of pickup days, and distributed the bins.

No agreement was necessary. Recycling by the county is pursuant to statute.

>>> The power and phone lines between the house and the pole are not mine.
>> Again, whom you've signed a subsequent agreement with.
>
> I do have agreements with both phone and electricity so that's possible
> but there was a gap of a few weeks between buying the house and turning the
> phone on. Does that mean I own the wires? I don't think so.

Why not sue and find out? After all, the phone company just left those
wires there. Probably for years.
<snip/>

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:23:15 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:40:40 -0700, naughtius wrote:

> I Dunno... MAYBE Set Out a Plate Of Milk n' Cookies With a "PLEASE Mr
> McGyver?" Tag On It...

Heh heh ...

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:24:34 PM9/30/13

to

On 9/30/13 1:39 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:03:31 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> 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:
>
> If that's the answer to all questions in misc.legal, then why does
> misc.legal even exist?

As far as I can tell, misc.legal exists for Bill Graham to grouse about
"liberals" spending money on people like him, for Greegor to diagnose
everybody who posts as having Aspergers Syndrome, and for richard to
prove periodically that he's dumber than Graham. And for me to ridicule
all three of them.

Oh, yeah. Occasionally someone asks a question about the law.

>
> For example, I'm a developer in software, and I am a moderator on the
> company's forum site (which is similar, in intent, to an NNTP USENET
> newsgroup).
>
> If we said "contact a lawyer" every time the folks looking for advice
> asked us a question, we'd have no reason for existing.

I'm guessing that the reason your company has a forum is so that it
abjectly apologize for the latest release of its software. As a
developer, you actually know about the software, and most of your users
have questions that can be answered specifically -- "To activate the
abort function, stand on one foot and hold down the "alt" and "esc" keys
while shouting 'Bingo!'" What's the worst that can happen?

Legal questions are often difficult to answer, even when you have all
the facts and actually know the controlling law. And there's a good
chance that the questioner will either not have asked the proper
question or will have misunderstood the answer. Those who are qualified
to answer legal questions (i.e., attorneys) won't answer them in detail
on misc.legal lest they inadvertently form a lawyer-client relationship.
Those who will answer aren't qualified.

>
> What we say is "this is our opinion", or "from our experience"; but,
> more to the point, almost always we have tons of experience in the
> questions posed - so that's why I'm shocked that this question, which
> seems to come up a lot, doesn't have a definitive answer for the
> state of California.

You're too easily shocked. That's because you don't know enough.

Just my "opinion."

> For the state of North Carolina, we reported the definitive answer.
> Likewise for the state of Maryland.
> But, for California, the process of establishing ownership eludes us.
>
> Clearly I'll find out the answer. And, just as clearly, I'll report
> back. I might not report back in the moderated group, simply because
> the posts appear to not be posted (either forever, or for many days).
>
> So, it's unreliable as a reporting mechanism.

misc.legal.moderated is slow because the moderator likely has a life.
That's different from unreliable.

> But, knowing how USENET and forums work, and being a moderator of the
> rules, I will sincerely "pay it forward" and let people know how
> in the State of California, to establish ownership of a propane
> tank that is unclaimed for years, and unmentioned in deed, to the
> satisfaction of any home owner.

Should be a hoot.

> I'm just not there yet with all the answers to this rather simple
> question. But that's only because nobody has ever asked this question
> before and gotten a reliable answer. It's not because someone doesn't
> know the answer. It's just that *I* don't (yet) know the answer.

That's adorable. Really.

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:38:28 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:08:07 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> Why not sue and find out? After all, the phone company just left those
> wires there. Probably for years.

The phone wires are my property anyway.
And my responsibility to fix.
Out here, all lines must be buried, so even the buried lines are mine.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:42:00 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:03:34 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> "Unreliable, with respect to the temporal nature of the postings"? What
> kind of language is that?

It means that many posts never show up, and others are many days late.

If that's not reliable, I'm not sure what is.

Specifically, the few (1/3) posts that did show up, showed up
about four or five days belated (two for the original post,
and at least two for subsequent posts).

It's like calling 911 to save you from an intruder and 911
only shows up 1/3 the time, hours upon hours later; and the
other 2/3s of the time they don't show up at all.

That's unreliable from a temporal standpoint.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 5:42:43 PM9/30/13

to

On 9/30/13 3:28 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:28:55 -0400, David L. Martel wrote:
>
>> Alex assumes that all of these became his property.
>> So he trims the hedge, puts his garden tools in
>> the shed and has someone deliver propane to "his" tank.
>> And life is good.
>
> Hi David,
> I appreciate your clarification as this is a legal issue, not
> a moral issue, nor a technical issue. It's simply a legal question
> which, if the answer truly is that ownership is maintained in perpetuity,
> then nobody can ever sleep at night for the rest of their life,
> after having bought a home supposedly free and clear of liens.

How dramatic. But nonsense. There's always a chance that there's an
unknown claim to the real estate. Title insurance lets us sleep
peacefully. Are you really proposing that people are sleepless because
some party might claim the drapes that came with the house?

>
>> Some years later the owner of the tank shows up. This is where, in my
>> opinion, Alex gets really flaky.... he believes that he can win the
>> ownership in court.
>
> I don't plan on going to court; and I doubt the propane company
> will go to court either, for a tank clearly worth less than $1000.
>
> This is just a legal question. No more. No less.
>
> I just want to *understand* the process for what happens to
> personal property left attached to real property for a period
> of years in the State of California.

Do you suppose ownership has a half-life and decays over time?

>
> If I can't get an understanding of that on a legal group, then
> that would be sad.

Have you spent much time on misc.legal?

> For anyone to imply that personal property can
> be left on real property and remain the property of the original
> owner indefinitely belies belief

I think you mean "defies." "Belies" means contradict.

> (and, I've shown that there are
> statutes of limitations that "may" apply as well as the concept
> that the law does not favor those who "sleep on their rights, in
> addition to the fact that you can't enforce imaginary liens that
> don't seem to exist anywhere in county or state records).

Again, statutes of limitation apply to the time elapsed to bring a legal
action. The statute would likely run from the time you made the adverse
claim.

The adage about sleeping on rights comes from the concept of laches, or
prejudicial delay. I can't see how Company A failure to claim the tank
has put you at any disadvantage in your claim of ownership.

Nobody is trying to enforce a lien in this case (as far as I can tell).

> So far, I've determined the following factual events:
> What I've established are the following facts:
>
> * Roy E. Hanson Jr. Mfg, Los Angeles manufactured the tank

> * Hanson sold to Suburban, who has no record of my address
>
> * Somehow the Heritage Group presumably lay claim to the tank
>
> * Amerigas bought the Heritage Group (& presumably its assets)
>
> * A tech recently implied the tank was owned by the Heritage Group
>
> * There is no mention in the closing papers either way
>
> * The tank had propane & regulators attached at the time of sale
>
> * There are no labels on the tank asserting ownership either way
>
> * After sale, I signed an affidavit stating I owned the tank
>
> * Amerigas inspected the tank and found everything to be sound
>
> * Amerigas has been filling "my" tank ever since
>
> In addition, it's probable that:
> * Propane tanks are personal property (i.e., not real property)

I'd say that one was certain. Real property is land and buildings.

> * (some) Personal property is subject to a 3-year abandonment SOL

Abandonment requires intent. You'll have to show that in court if
there's a dispute.

> * There is no serial # registered with the building permit
>
> * There is likely no UCC-1 filed with the Secretary of State

Doesn't matter. Not applicable.

> * There probably isn't a lien filed with local County Records

There wouldn't be unless someone owed someone else money.

> * The National Board doesn't contain subsequent ownership info
>
> Homework:
> * Wait to hear back from the National Board on official ownership
>
> * Run an in-person search at the County Records for liens
>
> * Still waiting to hear back from the title insurance on liens
>

I know I'm not one to talk, but shouldn't getting a life be on that list?

deadrat

unread,

Sorry, but I've lost track. How do you know that Heritage didn't
acquire the tank from Suburban?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 6:06:41 PM9/30/13

to

On 9/30/13 4:37 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:39:14 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
>>> Likewise if you throw something in the trash. Doesn't it become
>>> the property of the garbage company instantly?
>>
>> No, when you put the trash out by the curb, you lose your ownership.
>
> That doesn't make sense based on the fact I've read in the papers
> that the police arrest people who steal the recyclables out of
> people's trash recycling.
>
> So, if *nobody* owned it, they couldn't be prosecuted for stealing.

Recyclables are different. They're inherently valuable (or there would
be no market to recycle them). Likely statute criminalizes taking
recyclables.

<snip/>

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 6:12:33 PM9/30/13

to

I'd be very surprised if that were true. The wires from the central
office to your house, usually ending these days in a little gray box
attached to an outside wall of your house, are part of what's called
"outside plant." And the telephone company owns outside plant, mostly
because if you fiddle with it, you can affect their network in unhappy ways

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 6:17:19 PM9/30/13

to

On 9/30/13 4:42 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:03:34 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
>> "Unreliable, with respect to the temporal nature of the postings"? What
>> kind of language is that?
>
> It means that many posts never show up, and others are many days late.

Yeah, I was making fun of the locution.

> If that's not reliable, I'm not sure what is.
>
> Specifically, the few (1/3) posts that did show up, showed up
> about four or five days belated (two for the original post,
> and at least two for subsequent posts).

First of all, the group is moderated. That means delays are inherent.
Secondly, there are posting guidelines. If you violate them, your posts
are canned. If you've given a valid return email address, the moderator
will tell you why. If you haven't, then you can't find out.

> It's like calling 911 to save you from an intruder and 911
> only shows up 1/3 the time, hours upon hours later; and the
> other 2/3s of the time they don't show up at all.

A moderated newsgroup is nothing like calling 911. It's not there to
save you from anyone, even yourself.

> That's unreliable from a temporal standpoint.

In English, we have a handy word for "unreliable from a a temporal
standpoint." That word is "slow."

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 6:29:04 PM9/30/13

to

On 9/30/13 4:45 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:24:34 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing that the reason your company has a forum is so that it
>> abjectly apologize for the latest release of its software.
>
> Let me tell you, don't ever let anyone tell you software doesn't
> have bugs in it!
>
> Our software costs tens of thousands of dollars per seat, and it
> has just as many bugs.

As dollars or seats?

>
> From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure how we get away with charging
> for support, when almost all the support is for bugs (we charge
> extra for training).

You should probably read your licensing agreement. You'll find the
answer there.

>
> So I don't disagree with you one bit.
>
> But, my point was, when they come to us with a question, we
> give them the answer to the best of our abilities.
>
> We don't tell them "go to a lawyer". Otherwise we'd have no
> reason to exist.

The correct analogy would be to tell them to go to an independent
consultant to get answers about your company's software.

> They KNOW they can go to a lawyer. That's not
> what the USENET is all about.

I've been looking for this answer for over 30 years. What is usenet about?

> And, I, for one, pay it forward, especially by closing the loop,
> and by being polite, and responsive, and by providing detail when
> detail is requested.
>
> At least I try to.

Very admirable. I try to be snarky, discursive, and provide detail even
when it is not requested. I'll bet I have more fun.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 8:06:53 PM9/30/13

to

Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:19:25 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> I suspect that if the property owner finds it, he can assume
>> ownership of it.
>
> The propane tank is huge, above ground, and connected to
> the house, so, if the original propane company owned it
> in the first place, they certainly knew exactly where it
> was all these years, so, they certainly can "find" it.
>
> I found an almost exact case described here but for MD:
> http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/239558-united-propane-st-leonard-robbing-us-again-4.html
>
> It seems, based on that nice description, the title search
> should have turned up any liens such as those that would
> be found by the propane company filing a California UCC-1
> form. http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/ucc/
>
> Since that title search didn't turn up a UCC-1 filed for
> the propane tank (nor for the satellite dishes, garbage
> cans, and other items that came with the house), one has
> to assume that the propane tanks are now mine.
>
> Unfortunately, nobody has cited anything that actually
> says that - which is why I had asked in the first place.

Well, have a welder take his torch, and cut it in half horizontally, and
make a huge swimiming pool out of it. (I knew a guy who did this with a big
tank that he acquired, and it made a great pool)

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 8:07:02 PM9/30/13

to

Telephone service is no longer a monopoly. And at least where I live,
electricity supply isn't either. In any case, the regulations that
govern these utilities likely make no difference as to who owns the
outside plant.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 8:07:51 PM9/30/13

to

Discovery.

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 9:56:30 PM9/30/13

to

On Monday, September 30, 2013 6:56:22 PM UTC-6, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:04:47 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry, but I've lost track. How do you know that Heritage didn't acquire
>
> > the tank from Suburban?
>
>
>
> I do NOT know that. In fact, if Heritage did think they own it, that would
>
> be my guess.
>

<Snip>

EVERYBODY WATCH Me SOLVE This UNSOLVABLE Puzzle...

>
>
> 2. The tank was manufactured by Roy E. Hanson Jr. Mfg

You CAN RELY On THIS Information...
>
> Phone: 213-747-7514

Oh.THANKS.I'dBeenSearchingForDecadesForThisNumber...

>
>
>
> 3. Hanson sold that tank to Surburban Propane of Whippany NY

You CAN RELY On THIS Information...
>
> Phone: 973-887-5300

Oh.THANKS.I'dBeenSearchingForDecadesForThisNumber...

>
>
>
> 4. The National Board record will likely corroborate that sale:

THIS Is NOT Reliable Information; Regard It WITH SUSPICION..
>
> Phone: 614-431-3204

Oh.THANKS.I'dBeenSearchingForDecadesForThisNumber...

>
>
>
> 4. The local Suburban Propane has never put any tank at my address:

EXTREME DANGER! AT _BEST_ You Are "Relying" On SUSPICIOUS, *3rd Party* Information... Proceed With EXTREME CAUTION & SKEPTICISM...

Only STUPID People Would Give Any Level Of Credence To What MYSTERIOUS VOICE At The Other End Of The Line "KNOWS" WRT An AGES OLD Transaction BETWEEN UNKNOWN 2nd, 3rd, 5th~10th+ Parties...
>
> Phone: 408-227-8464

Oh.THANKS.I'dBeenSearchingForDecadesForThisNumber...

>
>
>
> 5. Amerigas bought Heritage Propane for $2.9 billion on Jan 12, 2012:
>
> ibtimes.com/amerigas-buy-heritage-propane-29-billion-324045
>
> amerigas.com/amerigas-propane-blog/amerigas-propane/news/amerigas-partners-announces-completion-of-heritage-propane-acquisition/
>
>
>
> 6. Presumably, Heritage Propane felt they owned my tank (reasons unknown).

NOT "Presumably"... When "Heritage" Was Bought By "AmeriGas," There Is LITTLE TO NO DOUBT That "AmeriGas" TIMELY RECEIVED *ALL BUSINESS RECORDS," INCLUDING The Serial Numbers Of ALL Property/LPG Tanks/Associated/Necessary Hardware Of THE FORMER "Heritage"...

THIS _IS_ a "DEFINITELY"...

>
>
>
> 7. Presumably, Amerigas feels they own my tank

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 10:31:06 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:17:19 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> In English, we have a handy word for "unreliable from a a temporal
> standpoint." That word is "slow."

Heh heh. As Patton said of McAuliff at Bastogne ...
"A man that eloquent, just has to be saved".

Ok. The misc.legal.moderated ng is as slow as the wheels of justice
turning, and as unreliable as throwing unbalanced darts at the circus
to win the big stuffed rabbit to take home to sis.

Hit. hit. miss miss miss miss hit miss ... hit ...miss ... etc.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 10:35:21 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:56:30 -0700, naughtius wrote:

> Only STUPID People Would Give Any Level Of Credence To What MYSTERIOUS
> VOICE At The Other End Of The Line "KNOWS" WRT An AGES OLD Transaction
> BETWEEN UNKNOWN 2nd, 3rd, 5th~10th+ Parties...

My title insurance company is not reliable?
The tank manufacturer doesn't know whom they sold the tank to?
Even when the information is corroborated by the National Board?
All of whom who keep strict records, by serial number & unique NB number?

Seems to me my real estate agent, my title insurance company, the
department of state, the county records office, the county planning office,
the manufacturer of the tank, the national board registration system, etc.,
are all reasonably reliable sources of information.

If you know of BETTER sources of relevant information, trust me, I'm
all ears!

That's why I asked in the first place!
Specifically since propane tanks are unlike any other real property.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 10:40:31 PM9/30/13

to

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 01:51:39 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

> I disagree that the regulations for regulated monopolies are exactly the
> same for the unregulated propane suppliers. There's just no way that would
> make any sense.
>
> So, what we need, are propane examples.
> Not car examples

Here's something I found, which also concludes that propane tanks in
California are like no other property ... whether real or personal.

PROPERTY TAX RULE 153 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS TANKS
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ip99051.pdf

Here's what it says inside (and I heartily agree):

"Contrary to the CAA's assertion, there is ample justification for treating
propane tanks differently, to-wit, that no other type of personal or real
property is similar. The CAA itself provides good examples of just how
unique propane tanks are."

They go on a bit later, saying:
"Propane tanks are unique in that they are often located on a lessee's
property, but cannot be used or "consumed" by the lessee."

So, this makes then uniquely different than almost every other "utility"
if not every other utility, and they don't even mention the fact that the
other utilities (out here) are all monopolies - so - they have wholly
different regulatory rules than unregulated commercial propane.

Note: The PDF does imply there are 300,000 LPG tanks in use in California,
essentially all of which are not owned by the homeowner - so this may
explain the otherwise inexplicable severe dearth in case law we're seeing.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 10:55:32 PM9/30/13

to

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:07:26 +0000, Alex Gunderson wrote:

> Who owns a propane tank left on CALIFORNIA property for 4.5 years?

It turns out that California clearly treats propane tanks as
REAL PROPERTY (i.e., improvements).

Googling for "Propane tank, California, real property or personal property"
I find this PDF which implies the industry wants propane tanks to be
considered "personal property", but that the state disagrees.

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 being classified as "improvements" by the state]

I think part of the confusion is that in some states, propane tanks
are actually considered to be "personal property".

To wit, here's a NJ lawyer saying they're real property (in NJ):
http://www.lawrenceyerkes.com/html/rmx-article-real-vs-personal-property.htm

Yet, here's a CA site which clearly mimics what we found in the tax documents:
http://www.calproptax.com/1proprty.html

REAL PROPERTY in CALIFORNIA includes...
"Tanks, butane, propane and water softener, unburied but which remain in place,
except household"

So, it's finally pretty clear since the words match exactly in all the
arguments in the aforementioned documents.

The propane "industry" strongly feels that propane tanks in California
are "personal property" (and so do some states, such as NJ); but the state
of California is pretty clear that it's "real property" (and they tax it
accordingly, as improvements - and have been doing so - for decades).

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 11:31:06 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:06:53 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

> Well, have a welder take his torch, and cut it in half horizontally, and
> make a huge swimiming pool out of it. (I knew a guy who did this with a
> big tank that he acquired, and it made a great pool)

Heh heh.

BTW, I just belatedly realized where the bulk of the confusion lies.

It's all 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

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

We find that the western 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 (same paper as above).

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 that they 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
that are *not* about propane tanks fail to adequately explain the
unique treatment of propane tanks in California.

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Sep 30, 2013, 11:44:57 PM9/30/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:04:50 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> unless the tank is attached a lot more securely
> than you've led me to believe, it's not real property.

Hi deadrat,
(Hmmm... I'd like to call you something more, um ... er ... nice?)

I think the crux of the discussion is that, in California, two
things are slowly becoming clear to me:

1. Propane tanks are unique (so all other examples fail).
2. Propane tanks are REAL property.

Note that BOTH those arguments are clearly outlined in these PDFs:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ip99051.pdf
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ip99052.pdf

Also note that in other states (see NJ below), propane tanks
are actually considered to be PERSONAL property!
http://www.lawrenceyerkes.com/html/rmx-article-real-vs-personal-property.htm

Yet, clearly, in California, propane tanks are considered (and taxed) as
REAL property, and as such, IMPROVEMENTS!
http://www.calproptax.com/1proprty.html

This is a key distinction!

Bill Graham

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 12:44:26 AM10/1/13

to

This is entirely reasonable, (knowing California as I do) Those people never
miss a chance to generate some tax money, and any decision that does this is
a sure thing. I'm surprised that they don't have an, "Any old junk that
somebody leaves on your property, tax".

deadrat

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 1:09:40 AM10/1/13

to

Harsh. Way harsh.

deadrat

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 1:20:06 AM10/1/13

to

On 9/30/13 8:40 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:04:50 -0500, deadrat wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you're sleeping at night because you mistakenly think that things
>> like statutes of limitations, estopple by laches, and absence of liens
>> will somehow convey to you ownership of the propane tank in question.
>
> I'm sleeping at night because I believe that tank is rightfully mine.

I'm an agnostic on this.

> Suburban Propane, who clearly originally bought the tank, has no record
> of it ever being installed at my residence. (But we don't know if they
> sold it to anyone.)

Likely that these tanks are passed around like a cold in a kindergarten.

> My title insurance company "advisor" says it's clearly my tank, as he found
> nothing to the contrary in public records, going back through the chain
> of title to at least 3 owners of my residence prior to me, back to the
> year that the propane tank was manufactured.

Generally, there are no public records for things that don't have deeds,
titles, or liens.

> He said it's real property (despite what I had thought, from googling),
> since it's clearly "attached as a fixture to the house".

I'm agnostic about this as well. If this ever came to court, this might
be an item of dispute. If it takes a welding torch to get the thing
loose, it's probably part of the house. If it takes five minutes with a
wrench before the tank can be driven away, probably not.

> My real estate agent also says it came with the house, and that there are no
> disclosures to the contrary by the sellers; so, if there were, she suggested
> a claim against the seller's real estate agent. (We don't know what the
> seller's real estate agent has to say about this though.)

Your real estate agent has exactly as much knowledge of the provenance
of the tank as you do.

> The California Department of State has no record of a UCC-1 filed for
> this property. Likewise the local county recorder didn't tell the
> title company of any recorded liens against the property (other than the
> mortgage). Note: I will run a search tomorrow.

As I've patiently explained, this form is not applicable to your situation.

> And, the local county planning office knows of only the one permit
> which I will try to obtain a copy of tomorrow in addition to running
> an in-person lien search at the county recorders office.

As others have patiently explained, the county doesn't care who owns the
tank as long as they get their permit fee.

> So, all the people that are "supposed" to know who were paid to know,
> seem to agree that it's "my" tank and that there is nothing to the contrary
> anywhere in the public record.

No one is "supposed" to know who owns the tank. There are likely no
public records about it.

<snip/>

deadrat

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 1:23:27 AM10/1/13

to

On 9/30/13 9:35 PM, Alex Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:56:30 -0700, naughtius wrote:
>
>> Only STUPID People Would Give Any Level Of Credence To What MYSTERIOUS
>> VOICE At The Other End Of The Line "KNOWS" WRT An AGES OLD Transaction
>> BETWEEN UNKNOWN 2nd, 3rd, 5th~10th+ Parties...
>
> My title insurance company is not reliable?

Not about propane tanks.

> The tank manufacturer doesn't know whom they sold the tank to?

If it wasn't sold to one of the two companies in the picture, what
difference would that make.

> Even when the information is corroborated by the National Board?
> All of whom who keep strict records, by serial number & unique NB number?

All that does is identify the tank, not who owns it.

> Seems to me my real estate agent, my title insurance company, the
> department of state, the county records office, the county planning office,
> the manufacturer of the tank, the national board registration system, etc.,
> are all reasonably reliable sources of information.

Just not for the ownership of a piece of private personal property.

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 5:50:05 AM10/1/13

to

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:44:26 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

> This is entirely reasonable, (knowing California as I do) Those people
> never miss a chance to generate some tax money,

I don't disagree with you; but this seems to be why there is
all this confusion about the status of the propane tanks.

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.

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/

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 6:00:22 AM10/1/13

to

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:20:06 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> No one is "supposed" to know who owns the tank. There are likely no
> public records about it

I'm finally understanding that, in the personal property states
(i.e., all but NY & CA so far), the UCC-1 is a form that is used
to register the personal property.
https://www.secretary.state.nc.us/ucc/

Yet, in the real property states, the UCC-1 would be meaningless,
since the propane tanks are apparently considered real property
(i.e., improvements) and are not considered personal property.

So, the county records should ownership details for those tanks
(but probably don't, since the title insurer didn't find any).

I'll visit the county tomorrow morning anyway (hey, it's actually
this morning - only it's 2am right now and I'm still doing the
research on the net).

Alex Gunderson

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 6:01:04 AM10/1/13

to

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:31:47 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> What are you saying here?

Um ... er ... 'dead' 'rat' sounds so ... um ... final.

How about 'dead right' instead?

:)

David L. Martel

unread,

Oct 1, 2013, 8:39:34 AM10/1/13

to

Alex,

I don't see how this "real property" notion helps you. If California
regards tanks as real property then the tank is the real property of the
owner. This doesn't answer the ownership question and it's ownership that
interests you.
Stop grasping at straws.

Good luck,
Dave M.

Alex Gunderson

unread,