On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:42:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Comes down to money. Probably made it real property just for the tax
purpose.

You're probably right.

California figured they'd get more money from propane companies if
they call propane tanks real property instead of personal property.

I'm not sure how they'd get more money - but - the fact the propane
companies clearly argue the contrary opinion should give us a clue.

So, we now know that, in California, the TAX guys consider propane
tanks "real property".

The question has merit whether the COURTS also consider it real property.

This is especially important because a house that is sold, transfers
the real property, unless something is stated otherwise. Right?

If that's the case, then any real property that was actually owned
by the previous owner, was also transferred.

However, in this case, we don't know WHO owned that tank at the
time of sale.

The good news is that, if it's real property that is actually owned
by Amerigas (at this point), then I have a case to have my title
insurance make me whole because this is a real-property ownership
issue that popped up well after the sale.

The funny thing is that my searches all show that Suburban actually
owned that tank. Yet, Suburban never installed it at my residence.

So, unless Suburban sold it to the Heritage Group (who was bought
by Amerigas), I doubt even Amerigas can establish ownership of that
tank.

I just wish I could find a single similar California court case
to read by way of example - but - Google is failing me.