| Author |
Message |
    
Joanna Romann
Citizen
Username: Triplejklein
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:50 pm: | 
|
We just bought a house, haven't moved in yet. We had the tank tested before we closed and it came up clean. We just had the tank pulled and they found a leak. They also took another soil sample that has oil in it. We are being told they are going to rip up our entire backyard. Anyone have any advice or know what our rights are? Also looking for an environmental attourney that may be able to help. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1772
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
You'll get more specific advice than this... but I would go right back to the lawyer I used for the closing and ask for advice. This seems like it won't be your problem to solve.
There was a thread on here recently concerning oil tank testing where the test was done right near the fill spout... of course that soil sample would yield oil, right? From spills over the last 50 years or so!
Talk to your lawyer, do NOT let anyone dig up your yard just yet. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4618
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Let's see, did PTS possibly pull the tank?
If you check the archives you will read my recent oil tank woes. Matter of fact, today the pile of dirt was taken away. The guy said "this is it?" I told him how it was not even contaminated but PTS reported it as such to the DEP, so we had the tank pulled (it was fine!) and had a bit of soil remediated for "the paper train" as he called it.
There are a bunch of scam artists out there. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11838
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 4:26 am: |
|
I thought it was pretty standard that when there is an underground tank whether it is leaking or not that the buyer require that the seller remove it before closing, to avoid situtations such as this.
I would suggest talking to an attorney other than the one you used for closing since he or she let you buy a house with a tank. Unless the previous owner knew the tank was leaking and you can prove it I suspect you are on the hook, but I ain't a lawyer and you should talk to one who doesn't have a vested interest in the situation.
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 755
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 7:31 am: |
|
Bob- This was what we were told, and we waited 6 months to close while our seller dealt with the Tank situation. (We bought knowing a tank was there and needed to be removed/soil remediated). I was given the impression from our realtor/lawyer that you cannot sell a house without having addressed any problem oil tank issues, by law???
I'm sure you are in for some serious frustration Joanna, however, I doubt you are in for some serious bills. The good news is, that once it's addressed, its permanently resolved. |
jab
Citizen
Username: Jab
Post Number: 574
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 7:40 am: |
|
People buy houses with underground storage tanks all the time. If a buyer tests the oil tank and/or surrounding soil and it comes out clean there is nothing more that a lawyer is obligated to say or do about it. When we bought our house a few years ago we did not do any testing, because the sellers had a tank protection program (which pays for any necessary environmental remediation if there is a leak). There was in fact a leak (several coin-sized holes in the tank) and we had to dig up the tank and do a full blown remediation within a year. Our situation was apparently on the bad side for a residential tank, which means that they dug up an area approximately 10' x 8' and 12' deep. They knew there was a lot of oil in the ground as soon as they started digging, because of the smell and color of the dirt. I suspect that your problem is not nearly as bad if one soil sample came back clean but another didn't. In any event, I wish you the best in dealing with this. Our environmental contractor, in case you need another opinion, was Environmental Resource Technologies and they were excellent. |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 604
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 7:54 am: |
|
I understood the law had changed very recently, and that you cannot sell without removing the tank. Anyone know for sure?
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11839
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 8:27 am: |
|
I don't know what the law says, just the practical aspects of buying and selling homes. When we soid there was no underground tank. It was in the basement, probably because of rocky soil and ledge on our property.
The house we bought had the tank removed when it was sold back in the late 1990s and our lawyer wouldn't let us move forward until the owners found the clearance letter from NJDEP indicating no further action was required. |
Mergele
Citizen
Username: Mergele
Post Number: 403
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
Well, here's a question for those of you who seem to have a whole lot more experience with this than I do (purely hypothetical, of course):
Let's say the buyer tests and finds oil in the soil exceeding NJDEP limits. The seller then takes the failing results to his/her tank insurance/warranty folks. They too test and confirm that they find evidence of contamination, and out comes the tank.
The contractor who digs the darn thing up, then asserts (without further soil testing) that there was no contamination of said soil. The town inspects the tank itself, doesn't find any actual holes, and gives the tank a clean bill of health. The soil removed along with the tank is replaced in the hole it originally came from. No remediation is performed.
Is the town's clean bill of health on the (now removed) tank sufficient to absolve the hypothetical new owner of liability down the road when they go to sell the property and are asked to produce documentation on the tank removal?
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11846
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
From Vig's experience apparently not. Once the leak, or alleged leak, is reported to the DEP you have to go through the whole remediation process and get the No Further Action letter I mentioned above from the DEP. |
Proud Daddy
Citizen
Username: Proud_daddy
Post Number: 30
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
I am not aware of any requirement for a seller to remove a UST prior to sale. They are required to disclose of the existence of a UST and if they have knowledge of a leak. They are required to verify if the leak has resulted in a release to the environment and then call the DEP. The DEP will investigate a iniate a case file which will probably no-sale until closed.
No testing means no knowledge means nothing to disclose other than the existence of a UST. You should check with your lawyer because they probably put a clause in your contract to protect you if something like this happens.
I am curious about the tank testing results. Nothing is 100% fail free but at least the hydrostatic/tightness test should have identified a leak. Not to suggest unethical treatment but did you use anyone recommended or associated with the oil company? I would suggest a strong conflict of interests since they usually underwrite the leak insurance policy. It is not in thier best interests to discover a leak.
|
DReese
Citizen
Username: Dreese
Post Number: 11
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 12:22 pm: |
|
law hasn't change... just bought a house in south orange myself with an underground tank. wasn't required of seller to remediate or remove nor test. we had to pay for an oil inspection ourselves which came out clean.
if buying, u may want to talk down the price of house if not too late to cover remediation costs if that's your plan. i hear it's about $10k to do.
|
cecilia david
Citizen
Username: Ceciliadav569
Post Number: 22
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
You need an enviromental lawyer that is familar with the laws re: oil tanks and especially is leaking. Your closing attorney may not be your friend if you paid for this when most new home owners have the seller pay for this. Good Luck. ceciliadavid |
Rick B
Citizen
Username: Ruck1977
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I don't think it is law either, but I think a lot of attorneys are catching wind of this, and not allowing a clean close. we are goign through this right now. luckily our buyers are willing to close on our original date.
In the last about 2 weeks we had a soil test, a new tank installed in basement, and the leaking tank removed from our front yard. now its up to our contractors and DEP to get all the documentation straight. Most likely we will escrow a portion of the sale proceeds until the no further action letter comes in, but still close on the same date (next week!!).
Our buyers did a tightness/vacuum test that came up with leaks. however, no insurance policy is going to accept that test without a soil test as well. So, we paid for the soil test and they found oil, thus prompting the rest of the scenario to play out. Our buyers could have easily walked away though. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page