A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

On Sat, 01 May 2010 23:10:02 -0400, frank1492 wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?

Yes. Underground tanks are *huge* liability issues. Several hundred gallons
of fuel oil in the ground can easily cost six figures to clean up. AFAIK,
most won't underwrite even new underground tanks.

On May 1, 11:10*pm, frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
* * Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
* * The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old *and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
* * In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
* *Thank you.
* * * * Frank


Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

On May 1, 11:45 pm, Evan wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, frank1492 wrote:



A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

I'd say that 15 years is not particularly old, first off...

Since probably half or more of RI residential heat is oil, it's hard to
imagine there are not thousands of insured underground tanks and will be
for years to come.

I'd suggest first contacting the local entity in charge of building
occupancy permitting and residential real estate transfer regulations
for the jurisdiction and see what actual requirements are, followed by
contacting State offices if there are still uncertainties.

As someone else says, actually talking w/ the insurance underwriter (the
house currently is insured, surely?) as well as a few
brokers/underwriters/lenders should determine the lay of the land locally.

Remember, in most places a real estate broker even if hired by you to
"list" the house may _NOT_ be actually on your side in the transaction
but working for the potential buyers. The actual requirements in RI
will be spelled out in the contractual legalese; be sure to first ask
and then double-check what the actual requirements on the representative
the friend has are. Although many look at it as unnecessary expense, I
would advise legal representation to cover the bases as mandatory for
any transaction of such size, particularly when there's any chance of
some later claim for damages/remediation possible.

After the information-gathering, then it's a choice of whether to hold
out for what is probably (if I had to guess) the stand that if the tank
is inspected and shown in good shape there's no legal basis for
requiring anything else/more and buyer can either accept or find another
house to buy or abject capitulation to "whatever the buyer wants, buyer
gets".

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

--

On May 2, 10:36�am, dpb wrote:
frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
� � Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
� � The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old �and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
� � In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
� �Thank you.
� � � � Frank

I'd say that 15 years is not particularly old, first off...

Since probably half or more of RI residential heat is oil, it's hard to
imagine there are not thousands of insured underground tanks and will be
for years to come.

I'd suggest first contacting the local entity in charge of building
occupancy permitting and residential real estate transfer regulations
for the jurisdiction and see what actual requirements are, followed by
contacting State offices if there are still uncertainties.

As someone else says, actually talking w/ the insurance underwriter (the
house currently is insured, surely?) as well as a few
brokers/underwriters/lenders should determine the lay of the land locally..

Remember, in most places a real estate broker even if hired by you to
"list" the house may _NOT_ be actually on your side in the transaction
but working for the potential buyers. �The actual requirements in RI
will be spelled out in the contractual legalese; be sure to first ask
and then double-check what the actual requirements on the representative
the friend has are. �Although many look at it as unnecessary expense, I
would advise legal representation to cover the bases as mandatory for
any transaction of such size, particularly when there's any chance of
some later claim for damages/remediation possible.

After the information-gathering, then it's a choice of whether to hold
out for what is probably (if I had to guess) the stand that if the tank
is inspected and shown in good shape there's no legal basis for
requiring anything else/more and buyer can either accept or find another
house to buy or abject capitulation to "whatever the buyer wants, buyer
gets".

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Underground tanks are a HUGE ISSUE. Insurance is risk adverse.
espically when dealing with a possible risk that can cost 100,000s of
dollars

if a tank leaks it can contaminate the aquifier and ruin water wells
for miles.

just like knob and tube wiring, insurance as gotten really picky


most insurance companies dont hassle existing owners with existing
policies, they are often grandfathered in.

but ownership change makes new owner get new insurance, thats either
very expensive or completely unaffordable or often not available at all

On Sun, 02 May 2010 10:02:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, Evan wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, frank1492 wrote:



A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Gas station tanks are inspected on a regular basis. They were all replaced
over the last couple of decades and are monitored more or less continuously.
That's something the insurance and mortgage companies aren't going to like
counting on the homeowner to do.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

No, but if it's the prospective buyer of your home, in this market it is good
enough.

On Sun, 02 May 2010 09:36:14 -0500, dpb wrote:

frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

I'd say that 15 years is not particularly old, first off...

It's old enough that it may not be a double-wall fiberglass tank.

Since probably half or more of RI residential heat is oil, it's hard to
imagine there are not thousands of insured underground tanks and will be
for years to come.

Yes, now try to get new insurance on those tanks. They'll all likely be
replace (with above ground tanks) the next time the property is sold.

I'd suggest first contacting the local entity in charge of building
occupancy permitting and residential real estate transfer regulations
for the jurisdiction and see what actual requirements are, followed by
contacting State offices if there are still uncertainties.

That's one place to go, but the final arbiters are the loan and insurance
underwriters. It really doesn't matter what's "legal" if you can't get a loan
or insurance.

As someone else says, actually talking w/ the insurance underwriter (the
house currently is insured, surely?) as well as a few
brokers/underwriters/lenders should determine the lay of the land locally.

Remember, in most places a real estate broker even if hired by you to
"list" the house may _NOT_ be actually on your side in the transaction
but working for the potential buyers. The actual requirements in RI
will be spelled out in the contractual legalese; be sure to first ask
and then double-check what the actual requirements on the representative
the friend has are. Although many look at it as unnecessary expense, I
would advise legal representation to cover the bases as mandatory for
any transaction of such size, particularly when there's any chance of
some later claim for damages/remediation possible.

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.

After the information-gathering, then it's a choice of whether to hold
out for what is probably (if I had to guess) the stand that if the tank
is inspected and shown in good shape there's no legal basis for
requiring anything else/more and buyer can either accept or find another
house to buy or abject capitulation to "whatever the buyer wants, buyer
gets".

You're not legally required to sell. If the buyer *can't* buy the property,
you're out of luck.

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

Not going to work if the bank or insurance company require it. It'll have to
be done before the sale.

wrote

I'd say that 15 years is not particularly old, first off...

It's old enough that it may not be a double-wall fiberglass tank.

Since probably half or more of RI residential heat is oil, it's hard to
imagine there are not thousands of insured underground tanks and will be
for years to come.

Yes, now try to get new insurance on those tanks. They'll all likely be
replace (with above ground tanks) the next time the property is sold.


People are starting to have insurance problems even with indoor tanks more
that 15 years or so old. No way I'd touch a house with an underground tank
these days, not worth the risk.

wrote
Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.


Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too, leaking
or not

On May 2, 11:55�am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too, leaking
or not

above ground outdoor tanks in areas that freeze can have issues with
frozen lines

On Sun, 2 May 2010 11:55:41 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote
Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.


Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too, leaking
or not

I believe they *all* have, by now. This is one of the reasons the "ma and
pop" gas stations went the way of the buggy whip. Retanking stations cost
well into the six figures.

On Sun, 2 May 2010 09:02:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 2, 11:55?am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too, leaking
or not

above ground outdoor tanks in areas that freeze can have issues with
frozen lines

Generally they use kerosene or a kero mix for outdoor tanks where freezing is
a problem. They'll often change the mix during the season, too, which can
cause problems if you don't use as much as the delivery company expects.

"dpb" wrote in message
...

I'd suggest first contacting the local entity in charge of building
occupancy permitting and residential real estate transfer regulations for
the jurisdiction and see what actual requirements are, followed by
contacting State offices if there are still uncertainties.

As someone else says, actually talking w/ the insurance underwriter (the
house currently is insured, surely?) as well as a few
brokers/underwriters/lenders should determine the lay of the land locally.

That sounds like a good idea since if there is a possibility it will work
it's worth the time and effort to try. If it doesn't work then it's on to
Plan B.

I've worked for two companies that had issues with underground tanks. In
the first a disgruntled employee dropped a dime to local authorities on an
old diesel tank which the company then had to remove at huge expense, there
was a lot of contaminated soil that had to go to a toxic waste facility.
The big international company unwisely tried to ignore the local Fire Dept.
when they ordered the tank removed, that didn't work out so well.

In the second case the company was buying a building that had an old
underground tank for waste oil, and their lawyers were real clear on not
signing the deal until the original owners had legally assumed all liability
for possible future cleanup of the tank site. Such cleanup is expensive, so
I don't doubt that lenders and insurance companies are digging in their
heels on no underground tanks.

On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:



A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.


Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
....

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.
....

That depends on state and agency...they _can_ be a sellers' agent,
buyers' agent or dual, depending. Depends on State what is allowed...

Who's paying the commission to the listing agent? Generally, the buyer...

As for who signs such contracts, those who merely assume the agent is a
sellers' agent and don't carefully read the fine print or ask questions...

"Most states in the US require real estate agents to disclose who they
work for, buyer or sellers or both. Some disclosures can be verbal and
others must be in writing. ..."

http://homebuying.about.com/cs/disclosures/l/bl_disclosures.htm

They don't have RI listed and I didn't do any further searching for
RI-specific law.

But, as in so many things, "it all depends"...

....

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

Not going to work if the bank or insurance company require it. It'll have to
be done before the sale.

The offer/counter-offer period precedes the sale; it's the basis for the
final contract. The point of the preceding is to find out what really
is an issue and what is simply being "made up" for the
convenience/benefit of the buyer to get them to make the investment.

I'm not saying one way or the other about what is/isn't the actual
situation in RI; only that I'd not as seller simply take the word of
prospective buyers who are looking to make the best deal for themselves
they can.

--

wrote in message
...
On May 2, 11:55�am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too,
leaking
or not

above ground outdoor tanks in areas that freeze can have issues with
frozen lines

Many use kero for that reason. At work, we have a 2000 gallon tank and use
an additive for the oil, but in really cold weather it can still be a
problem at times. Probably similar to what goes in diesel

On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400, George
wrote:

On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:



A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

I work part time for an insurance company and there is not a carrier
left in the market that will cover an underground fuel tank on new
business.
NOT ONE. This is in Ontario Canada.
Some places are even requiring (not the insurance co, but the county)
either double walled vacuum monitored tanks or spill containers that
will contain a full tank contents in case of a leak for ABOVE ground
tanks.

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.


Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:49:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

wrote:
...

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.
...

That depends on state and agency...they _can_ be a sellers' agent,
buyers' agent or dual, depending. Depends on State what is allowed...

Who's paying the commission to the listing agent? Generally, the buyer...

Up here there is a listing fee and a buying fee. If the same agent
lists and sells, they get the whole fee. If one agent lists and
another sells, the fee is split (I don't think it's 50/50 either -
seems the listing agent gets the bigger chunk)

As for who signs such contracts, those who merely assume the agent is a
sellers' agent and don't carefully read the fine print or ask questions...

"Most states in the US require real estate agents to disclose who they
work for, buyer or sellers or both. Some disclosures can be verbal and
others must be in writing. ..."

http://homebuying.about.com/cs/disclosures/l/bl_disclosures.htm

They don't have RI listed and I didn't do any further searching for
RI-specific law.

But, as in so many things, "it all depends"...

...

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

Not going to work if the bank or insurance company require it. It'll have to
be done before the sale.

The offer/counter-offer period precedes the sale; it's the basis for the
final contract. The point of the preceding is to find out what really
is an issue and what is simply being "made up" for the
convenience/benefit of the buyer to get them to make the investment.

I'm not saying one way or the other about what is/isn't the actual
situation in RI; only that I'd not as seller simply take the word of
prospective buyers who are looking to make the best deal for themselves
they can.

On May 1, 11:10*pm, frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
* * Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
* * The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old *and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
* * In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
* *Thank you.
* * * * Frank

As far as insurance goes it is difficult to get Homeowners insurance
or unusually expensive. The insurance company just wont cover damaged
caused by it.
In the last few years there have been a lot of houses flipped that had
them. Pretty much universally they got dug up mostly to be replaced
with NG
Jimmie

On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:44:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2010 16:15:37 -0400, wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:


Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

I work part time for an insurance company and there is not a carrier
left in the market that will cover an underground fuel tank on new
business.
NOT ONE. This is in Ontario Canada.

Oh, boy! At this point, Clare has claimed to have about 15 full time
or part time jobs, making him a professional expert regardles of the
subject under discussion!

When does he sleep?

Just for clarification, I am a licenced mechanic who spent over 20
years in that field, including teaching both high school and trade
school and 10 years as a service manager. The first place I worked was
also a farm equipment dealer and small engine shop (BoaSki
snowmobiles, Ariens lawn equipment, and Benelli motorbikes). For
health reasons I left that trade and was trained as a computer
technician. I worked for a local computer manufacturer/distributor for
5 years, then started my own business. While working in my own
business I also worked for 2 window/door companies, a millright, and
an insurance company part time.
Before getting my mechanics licence I also worked part time for my
Dad, an electrician, and spent 4 years working on the farm as a teen.
One of my hobbies was rebuilding old tube radios - and that has
continued to repairing some solid state stereo equipment and other
non-computer electronics, as well as the computers I fix for a living.
Another hobby has been cars - restoring classic and antique cars, as
well as building an electric car. Also drove cometetively in
navigational rallies for several years. I am also currently building
an airplane.

Doesn't leave much time for drinking, partying, or carrousing.

On May 2, 10:02*am, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 1, 11:45 pm, Evan wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, frank1492 wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
* * Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
* * The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old *and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
* * In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
* *Thank you.
* * * * Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. * There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. * Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. *Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. *What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. *If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. * On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. * How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? *I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.


Around my part of the country such fuel tanks are double wall and
have to be emptied and inspected every couple of years in order to
be re-certified by the state fire marshal and environmental people...

There is no such requirement for tanks installed in a non-commercial
use... Once installed they are never seen or examined again unless
by special request of the homeowner until some problem happens...

BTW: MOST home heating oil tanks around these parts are 250 gal
indoor deals that are located only a few feet away from the burner,
not huge 1,000 gallon outdoor underground set ups...

~~ Evan

On May 2, 12:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 11:55:41 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote
Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too, leaking
or not

I believe they *all* have, by now. *This is one of the reasons the "ma and
pop" gas stations went the way of the buggy whip. *Retanking stations cost
well into the six figures.


LOL... If you seriously think that has solved the problem then you
are
completely unaware of entire divisions of your state government that
are
monitoring sites where "old tanks" were removed but the site itself
and the area "in the plume" is still in need of millions of dollars
worth
of abatement... Massive backlog of those sites around the country...

~~ Evan

On Sun, 2 May 2010 17:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On May 2, 12:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 11:55:41 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote
Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Most every one of those metal tanks had been dug up and replace too, leaking
or not

I believe they *all* have, by now. *This is one of the reasons the "ma and
pop" gas stations went the way of the buggy whip. *Retanking stations cost
well into the six figures.


LOL... If you seriously think that has solved the problem then you
are
completely unaware of entire divisions of your state government that
are
monitoring sites where "old tanks" were removed but the site itself
and the area "in the plume" is still in need of millions of dollars
worth
of abatement... Massive backlog of those sites around the country...

You must be on drugs. Oh, and don't forget the illiterate part, either.

On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:49:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

wrote:
...

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.
...

That depends on state and agency...they _can_ be a sellers' agent,
buyers' agent or dual, depending. Depends on State what is allowed...

The *listing* agent *ALWAYS* works for the seller. The buyer's agent's
allegiance is up for grabs, even when it's not supposed to be.

Who's paying the commission to the listing agent? Generally, the buyer...

No, the *seller* pays *ALL* commissions. If you've ever bought a house you
can easily see this on the transaction sheet.

As for who signs such contracts, those who merely assume the agent is a
sellers' agent and don't carefully read the fine print or ask questions...

You're on drugs.

"Most states in the US require real estate agents to disclose who they
work for, buyer or sellers or both. Some disclosures can be verbal and
others must be in writing. ..."

http://homebuying.about.com/cs/disclosures/l/bl_disclosures.htm

They don't have RI listed and I didn't do any further searching for
RI-specific law.

But, as in so many things, "it all depends"...

Again, the listing agent *always* works for the seller. There is no other way
that works.

...

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

Not going to work if the bank or insurance company require it. It'll have to
be done before the sale.

The offer/counter-offer period precedes the sale; it's the basis for the
final contract. The point of the preceding is to find out what really
is an issue and what is simply being "made up" for the
convenience/benefit of the buyer to get them to make the investment.

If the seller doesn't buckle under, the sale is off. Can happen, sure. With
minor issues it can be split because they can be done after the sale, or not
at all (buyer's choice). In this case there is no sale if the bank or
insurance company balk.

I'm not saying one way or the other about what is/isn't the actual
situation in RI; only that I'd not as seller simply take the word of
prospective buyers who are looking to make the best deal for themselves
they can.

Well, duh!

On Sun, 02 May 2010 16:17:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:49:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

wrote:
...

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.
...

That depends on state and agency...they _can_ be a sellers' agent,
buyers' agent or dual, depending. Depends on State what is allowed...

Who's paying the commission to the listing agent? Generally, the buyer...

Up here there is a listing fee and a buying fee. If the same agent
lists and sells, they get the whole fee. If one agent lists and
another sells, the fee is split (I don't think it's 50/50 either -
seems the listing agent gets the bigger chunk)

That's generally the way it is in the US, too. Every state is somewhat
different though. Often in the listing there is a commission and agent's cut
statement (usually 6%, but I've seen it as low as 4% and as high as 7$, and
the cut is usually 50/50, but I've seen 60/40, also). The risk of a
nonstandard commission schedule is that buying agents may not be hot on
showing a property with a cheap slice on their side. I've heard one tell the
listing agent that they wanted the standard cut, before showing the property.

...

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
....

Again, the listing agent *always* works for the seller. There is no other way
that works.


The listing agent _still_ may be a dual-party agent in some states.
Again, whether that's allowed in RI depends on RI law which I don't
have. There are, whether you're aware of it or not, states where that
_IS_ allowed.

There's incentive to close a deal quickly and get on to the next one
that doesn't bode well for getting the highest possible dollar for the
seller even if listing agent.

....

If the seller doesn't buckle under, the sale is off. Can happen, sure. With
minor issues it can be split because they can be done after the sale, or not
at all (buyer's choice). In this case there is no sale if the bank or
insurance company balk.

Depends on how badly the buyer wants the house; one doesn't necessarily
know that of course but oftentimes the individual making the offer is
quite involved w/ the idea of "this" house once have committed to the
initial offer.

As for whether there's a problem getting loan or not, even if so it's
certainly possible to negotiate between the two parties how much to pick
up by each party.

Again, if it is a very widespread conversion in RI perhaps it is
essentially a cost of making a sale there; I'm still having difficulty
believing that is really so simply on the basis of such a prevalence of
oil heating. But, if it is so, it is and the OP should be able to
determine that.


I'm not saying one way or the other about what is/isn't the actual
situation in RI; only that I'd not as seller simply take the word of
prospective buyers who are looking to make the best deal for themselves
they can.

Well, duh!

Well, all I was doing was pointing out that the OP needs to do the
homework suggested rather than take the word of a party who obviously
wasn't on his side as a friend of the potential seller as it sounded as
if was. If it turns out the friend needs to go ahead and bite the
bullet so be it but at least know have made a reasonable decision rather
than being ramrodded into something.

And, of course, it also depends on just how badly they need to sell--if
there's duress involved that's a factor that we don't have any way of
knowing anything about.

--

On May 2, 10:36 am, dpb wrote:
frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

I'd say that 15 years is not particularly old, first off...

Since probably half or more of RI residential heat is oil, it's hard to
imagine there are not thousands of insured underground tanks and will be
for years to come.

I'd suggest first contacting the local entity in charge of building
occupancy permitting and residential real estate transfer regulations
for the jurisdiction and see what actual requirements are, followed by
contacting State offices if there are still uncertainties.

As someone else says, actually talking w/ the insurance underwriter (the
house currently is insured, surely?) as well as a few
brokers/underwriters/lenders should determine the lay of the land locally.

Remember, in most places a real estate broker even if hired by you to
"list" the house may _NOT_ be actually on your side in the transaction
but working for the potential buyers.
The actual requirements in RI
will be spelled out in the contractual legalese; be sure to first ask
and then double-check what the actual requirements on the representative
the friend has are.

Nonsense. If you list your home with an agent, I'd like to see one
example of a listing agreement where the broker is not then legally
bound to represent your interests as seller and be on your side of the
transaction.


Although many look at it as unnecessary expense, I
would advise legal representation to cover the bases as mandatory for
any transaction of such size, particularly when there's any chance of
some later claim for damages/remediation possible.

After the information-gathering, then it's a choice of whether to hold
out for what is probably (if I had to guess) the stand that if the tank
is inspected and shown in good shape there's no legal basis for
requiring anything else/more and buyer can either accept or find another
house to buy or abject capitulation to "whatever the buyer wants, buyer
gets".

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

--

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400, George
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

On May 2, 2:49 pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.

...

That depends on state and agency...they _can_ be a sellers' agent,
buyers' agent or dual, depending. Depends on State what is allowed...


How can the real estate agency that *listed* the house possibly be a
buyer's agent?




Who's paying the commission to the listing agent? Generally, the buyer...

Wrong. It's the SELLER that pays a percentage of the sales price as a
commission to the listing agent. If another agent is involved on the
buyer's side, then that commission is split between the two. Let's
say I'm selling my house and sign a listing agreement. It's an
agreement between me and the listing agent. How could I bind an
unknown future buyer to a contract they are not party too? Answer is,
you can't. Which is why the agreement says I, as the seller, am
responsible for paying the sales commission.



As for who signs such contracts, those who merely assume the agent is a
sellers' agent and don't carefully read the fine print or ask questions...






"Most states in the US require real estate agents to disclose who they
work for, buyer or sellers or both. Some disclosures can be verbal and
others must be in writing. ..."

http://homebuying.about.com/cs/disclosures/l/bl_disclosures.htm

They don't have RI listed and I didn't do any further searching for
RI-specific law.

But, as in so many things, "it all depends"...

...

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

Not going to work if the bank or insurance company require it. It'll have to
be done before the sale.

The offer/counter-offer period precedes the sale; it's the basis for the
final contract. The point of the preceding is to find out what really
is an issue and what is simply being "made up" for the
convenience/benefit of the buyer to get them to make the investment.

I'm not saying one way or the other about what is/isn't the actual
situation in RI; only that I'd not as seller simply take the word of
prospective buyers who are looking to make the best deal for themselves
they can.

--

Show us an example of a listing agreement to sell a house where the
listing agent is not legally bound to represent the seller.

On 5/3/2010 10:45 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400,
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

More FUD

So how much does it cost to do a leaky tank remediation where you are?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 09:36:14 -0500, dpb wrote:

frank1492 wrote:
A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank
I'd say that 15 years is not particularly old, first off...

It's old enough that it may not be a double-wall fiberglass tank.

The new tanks that were required for gas stations were double wall with
leak monitoring in the space between.

At some size (1000 gal?), surface tanks are required to have secondary
containment, which could be a concrete floor and walls high enough to
contain the tank contents.

Residential is exempt from the federal requirements unless they have
changed. States could regulate residential.

Since probably half or more of RI residential heat is oil, it's hard to
imagine there are not thousands of insured underground tanks and will be
for years to come.

Yes, now try to get new insurance on those tanks. They'll all likely be
replace (with above ground tanks) the next time the property is sold.

The oil supplier may be another source of information on what the
reality is.

I'd suggest first contacting the local entity in charge of building
occupancy permitting and residential real estate transfer regulations
for the jurisdiction and see what actual requirements are, followed by
contacting State offices if there are still uncertainties.

That's one place to go, but the final arbiters are the loan and insurance
underwriters. It really doesn't matter what's "legal" if you can't get a loan
or insurance.

As someone else says, actually talking w/ the insurance underwriter (the
house currently is insured, surely?) as well as a few
brokers/underwriters/lenders should determine the lay of the land locally.

Remember, in most places a real estate broker even if hired by you to
"list" the house may _NOT_ be actually on your side in the transaction
but working for the potential buyers. The actual requirements in RI
will be spelled out in the contractual legalese; be sure to first ask
and then double-check what the actual requirements on the representative
the friend has are. Although many look at it as unnecessary expense, I
would advise legal representation to cover the bases as mandatory for
any transaction of such size, particularly when there's any chance of
some later claim for damages/remediation possible.

Huh? The agent hired to *list* the house is always working for the seller.
Who would be dumb enough to sign a contract otherwise? The agent the buyer
uses is often/usually (almost always) working for the seller, as well, but
that's a separate issue.

I agree that the seller's agent is paid by the seller and is working for
the seller. Here the buyer's agent is generally paid by the seller and
is working for the seller. The buyer may have their agent working for
them, in which case the buyer probably pays their agent.

The sellers agent should know what the options are. _That is their job._

Might be wise to find out what the RI regs are and what the insurance
companies require. Could ask the sellers insurance company (but may be
better to ask anonymously).

All we have is the prospective buyers "were told".

After the information-gathering, then it's a choice of whether to hold
out for what is probably (if I had to guess) the stand that if the tank
is inspected and shown in good shape there's no legal basis for
requiring anything else/more and buyer can either accept or find another
house to buy or abject capitulation to "whatever the buyer wants, buyer
gets".

You're not legally required to sell. If the buyer *can't* buy the property,
you're out of luck.

Then, of course, there's always the counter-offer of "split the
difference witcha', ok?"

Not going to work if the bank or insurance company require it. It'll have to
be done before the sale.

wrote:
....

Show us an example of a listing agreement to sell a house where the
listing agent is not legally bound to represent the seller.

I didn't say they weren't only buyers' agents; only that in some states
they can also represent buyers at the same time...again, it depends on
specific state law. See earlier link for disclosure rules in some (but
not all) states.

--

On May 3, 12:49*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Show us an example of a listing agreement to sell a house where the
listing agent is not legally bound to represent the seller.

I didn't say they weren't only buyers' agents; only that in some states
they can also represent buyers at the same time...again, it depends on
specific state law. *See earlier link for disclosure rules in some (but
not all) states.

In that case they are not representing the buyer. They are already
contractually obligated to the seller.

On May 3, 2:22�pm, keith wrote:
On May 3, 12:49�pm, dpb wrote:

wrote:

...

Show us an example of a listing agreement to sell a house where the
listing agent is not legally bound to represent the seller.

I didn't say they weren't only buyers' agents; only that in some states
they can also represent buyers at the same time...again, it depends on
specific state law. �See earlier link for disclosure rules in some (but
not all) states.

In that case they are not representing the buyer. �They are already
contractually obligated to the seller.

I think it was a this old house episode uncovered a unused tank,
abandoned for years. furnace had been changed to natural gas

they said removal and decontamination could cost 25 grand and it didnt
appear to be leaking.

futher investigation proved it was filled with concrete so it was
removed with moon suit guys and inspectors

On Mon, 03 May 2010 11:03:52 -0400, George
wrote:

On 5/3/2010 10:45 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400,
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

More FUD

So how much does it cost to do a leaky tank remediation where you are?
A house just down the street from a friend of mine was just sold two
years ago and they found out there was an undisclosed underground oil
tank that had been leaking.( that the seller knew was there, and the
realtor didn't ask).The seller's insurance company and the realtor's
insurance had to cover the remediation, (not sure who ended up paying
what, but the buyer was off the hook) which was over 3 times what the
house had sold for. (total remediation cost just over a million) They
removed all the soil around the house and shipped it out to a
hazardous waste disposal site. They also had to remove soil beyond the
property limits towards a local creek.
The insurance also had to pay rental accomodation for the year the
house was not habitable.

If it was me, I'd have walked away from the deal and left the seller
and the broker holding the bag.

On 5/3/2010 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2010 11:03:52 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/3/2010 10:45 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400,
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

More FUD

So how much does it cost to do a leaky tank remediation where you are?

So far, we have ZERO evidence that we are talking about a leaky tank.
In fact, based on the information we DO have, it is highly unlikely
that the tank is leaking.

The discussion was about the potential of an underground tank leaking.
It does happen and it is expensive to remediate. Since it is a buried
tank how is someone supposed to know?


Other than that, we have an unverified report that one potential tire
kicker claimed that one mortgage compaany and one insurance company
had a problem just because of the existence of this tank, and
apparently was not open to the idea of first checking the tank, or
possibly removing it, before saying they would have nothing to do with
the deal under any circumstances.

So how much would it cost to dig up and inspect the tank? Who is even
going to "certify" an old tank since that would mean they are accepting
the liability for it?

It isn't even unheard of for insurance companies to refuse to insure old
above ground tanks anymore. Many will not even consider writing coverage
if you don't have a recent double wall tank.

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:38:58 -0400, George wrote:

On 5/3/2010 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2010 11:03:52 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/3/2010 10:45 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400,
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

More FUD

So how much does it cost to do a leaky tank remediation where you are?

So far, we have ZERO evidence that we are talking about a leaky tank.
In fact, based on the information we DO have, it is highly unlikely
that the tank is leaking.

The discussion was about the potential of an underground tank leaking.
It does happen and it is expensive to remediate. Since it is a buried
tank how is someone supposed to know?

In fact, it doesn't matter if it's currently leaking. Insurance companies and
banks are worried about future liabilities.

Other than that, we have an unverified report that one potential tire
kicker claimed that one mortgage compaany and one insurance company
had a problem just because of the existence of this tank, and
apparently was not open to the idea of first checking the tank, or
possibly removing it, before saying they would have nothing to do with
the deal under any circumstances.

So how much would it cost to dig up and inspect the tank? Who is even
going to "certify" an old tank since that would mean they are accepting
the liability for it?

It isn't even unheard of for insurance companies to refuse to insure old
above ground tanks anymore. Many will not even consider writing coverage
if you don't have a recent double wall tank.

I had an old, empty, tank in the basement (converted to gas seven or eight
years before) and the buyer's insurance company had me have it taken out.

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:21:13 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:38:58 -0400, George wrote:

On 5/3/2010 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2010 11:03:52 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/3/2010 10:45 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400,
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

More FUD

So how much does it cost to do a leaky tank remediation where you are?

So far, we have ZERO evidence that we are talking about a leaky tank.
In fact, based on the information we DO have, it is highly unlikely
that the tank is leaking.

The discussion was about the potential of an underground tank leaking.
It does happen and it is expensive to remediate. Since it is a buried
tank how is someone supposed to know?

In fact, it doesn't matter if it's currently leaking. Insurance companies and
banks are worried about future liabilities.

Other than that, we have an unverified report that one potential tire
kicker claimed that one mortgage compaany and one insurance company
had a problem just because of the existence of this tank, and
apparently was not open to the idea of first checking the tank, or
possibly removing it, before saying they would have nothing to do with
the deal under any circumstances.

So how much would it cost to dig up and inspect the tank? Who is even
going to "certify" an old tank since that would mean they are accepting
the liability for it?

It isn't even unheard of for insurance companies to refuse to insure old
above ground tanks anymore. Many will not even consider writing coverage
if you don't have a recent double wall tank.

I had an old, empty, tank in the basement (converted to gas seven or eight
years before) and the buyer's insurance company had me have it taken out.
And REMOVE both the filler and vent pipes!!!
Several cases locally where the oil delivery man got the wrong house -
one where there was no longer a tank. He finally caught on when he had
pumped more oil into the basement than the (missing) tank should have
held - - - .

On Mon, 03 May 2010 20:39:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:21:13 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:38:58 -0400, George wrote:

On 5/3/2010 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2010 11:03:52 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/3/2010 10:45 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 2, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 14:17:55 -0400,
wrote:



On 5/2/2010 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 06:57:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 1, 11:45 pm, wrote:
On May 1, 11:10 pm, wrote:

A friend is trying to sell her house. The house has an old steel tank
(15 years) that is not leaking.
Prospective buyers that come to the house say they were told a
bank won't approve a mortgage and/or they can't get homeowners'
insurance with the underground tank. This is in RI.
The person is considering removing the tank and replacing it with
an above ground tank, but this will require rerouting of the line,
tearing up the driveway etc. I say the issue is not the underground
tank per se but the fact that it is so old and that she should
replace it with an underground fiberglass tank. She could then show
the buyer, the bank and the insurance co the bill of sale and the
warrranty.
In your experience have you ever heard of mortgage/insurance co
problems if it can be proven that the underground tank is new and
non-corrosive?
Thank you.
Frank

Sounds like its time to dig the tank up and convert to natural gas...

Underground tanks are a huge liability because they often never
get inspected when used in homes and can have been leaking
for many many years when the homeowner finally starts to
realize that they are running through the oil in the tank faster
than they used to...

~~ Evan

An even better source would be to simply ask the buyers to put the
seller in contact with the actual insurance company and mortgage
company and ask them for their position. There is no question that
having been burned, many of these companies have tough reqts regarding
underground oil tanks. Even if the tank is fiberglass, that doesn't
guarantee that an underground fitting won't leak. Or the lines
between the tank and furnace. What one company will be OK with can be
different than another company.

Alternatively, call up some insurance companies and ask their
position. If you find one that says they will inure a new fiberglass
tank, you may have half the problem solved. On the other hand, you
have to also assess whether in this market, it's not better to just
bite the bullet and put in an above ground tank or if possible,
convert to gas. How much difference in cost can it be to put in an
above ground tank versus a buried one? I'd think the above would
actually be less expensive.

Underground tanks are not an automatic problem. Every gas station in
the US has one or more of them.

Major difference. Gas station tank installations have specific
requirements about allowable time in service and leak detection
equipment.

Yeah? So?

A 15 year old home heating oil tank is not a big deal, and if push
comes to shove, is generally not a big deal to replace. The insurance
company will insure the new tank and the mortgage company will make a
mortgage. Yes, it will cost more to replace than a tank in the
basement. Not the end of the world, though.

If you own a house with an underground tank, you can always do a
little homework yourself so that when someone raises the objection,
you have FACTS with which to respond.

Or, you can wring your hands and not sell your house.

"someone told me" is not enough to go on.

Apparently, doing a little research is exactly what the poster is
doing. It may not be a big deal to YOU, but if the buyer says that it
is a big deal to both the mortgage company and the insurance company,
then it's up to you to decide how marketable you want your house to
be. A 15 year old underground tank IS a big deal to me too, and
having seen many horror stories where lots became major environmental
cleanups that cost huge amounts of money, as a buyer, I'd be looking
at other houses that don't have this potential problem. And if it
was a truly unique house that had so many other redeeming virtues, I'd
insist on thouroughly testing the tank and provided it passes, a
discount sufficient to replace the tank anyway.

In today's market you think it's smart to be arguing "facts" with
buyers instead of just spending a few thousand to get rid of the
tank? That's all it's gonna be right? Because you as seller are
100% sure the tank isn't leaking and when they dig it up it's suddenly
going to go from $3K to $50K?

More FUD

So how much does it cost to do a leaky tank remediation where you are?

So far, we have ZERO evidence that we are talking about a leaky tank.
In fact, based on the information we DO have, it is highly unlikely
that the tank is leaking.

The discussion was about the potential of an underground tank leaking.
It does happen and it is expensive to remediate. Since it is a buried
tank how is someone supposed to know?

In fact, it doesn't matter if it's currently leaking. Insurance companies and
banks are worried about future liabilities.

Other than that, we have an unverified report that one potential tire
kicker claimed that one mortgage compaany and one insurance company
had a problem just because of the existence of this tank, and
apparently was not open to the idea of first checking the tank, or
possibly removing it, before saying they would have nothing to do with
the deal under any circumstances.

So how much would it cost to dig up and inspect the tank? Who is even
going to "certify" an old tank since that would mean they are accepting
the liability for it?

It isn't even unheard of for insurance companies to refuse to insure old
above ground tanks anymore. Many will not even consider writing coverage
if you don't have a recent double wall tank.

I had an old, empty, tank in the basement (converted to gas seven or eight
years before) and the buyer's insurance company had me have it taken out.
And REMOVE both the filler and vent pipes!!!

Yes, I'd already done that...

Several cases locally where the oil delivery man got the wrong house -
one where there was no longer a tank. He finally caught on when he had
pumped more oil into the basement than the (missing) tank should have
held - - - .

....because the above has happened far more often than people realize.