• Text Only
Glitch99 said:   
I'm still not understanding - neither of those things even imply that you are required to use that company's tank with that company's propane. Just get your own tank (or have another supplier bring you one), and let the current one just sit there unused.
  


That only works of you have enough spare land handy to bury multiple tanks.

Glitch99 said:   
drodge said:   
  No one will fill it other than the company who owns it, and if they won't come get it you're screwed.  

I'm still not understanding - neither of those things even imply that you are required to use that company's tank with that company's propane. Just get your own tank (or have another supplier bring you one), and let the current one just sit there unused.
  

I live in TN and no company will touch another's tank. Ever. Will not happen. I have never in my over 40 years heard of anyone getting a refill from another supplier. And that includes my personal experience.  If it's another companies tank a new company will not even bother coming out unless you want to put THEIR tank on your land.

Businesses have these unwritten agreements.

BJScibbity,

I am with Arrow Exterminators in the corporate office.  i have read your comments and wish to help you with your situation.  Please contact me directly at my email address - kburns@arrowexterminators.com. Thank you. Kevin

saladdin said:   
Glitch99 said:   
drodge said:   
  No one will fill it other than the company who owns it, and if they won't come get it you're screwed.  

I'm still not understanding - neither of those things even imply that you are required to use that company's tank with that company's propane. Just get your own tank (or have another supplier bring you one), and let the current one just sit there unused.
  

I live in TN and no company will touch another's tank. Ever. Will not happen. I have never in my over 40 years heard of anyone getting a refill from another supplier. And that includes my personal experience.  If it's another companies tank a new company will not even bother coming out unless you want to put THEIR tank on your land.

Businesses have these unwritten agreements.

  
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a company should/would refill another company's tank.  That is illegal in many states.  The issue is switching suppliers and getting rid of the tank that you don't want when the tank owner won't take their property away.  Or they make removal prohibitively expensive to maintain a captive customer.  

bravebiffy said:   Not when the original contract (the old one with the old homeowner) states it's automatically transferred to the new owners without having a new contract drawn. As speculation only, there must be some sort of a clause in that old contract because no reputable company (at least that's what they present themselves as) would risk of lawsuits going into peoples property and ripping things out without the protection of a signed contract allowing them to do so. It doesn't make sense.

Having said so, and whatever the contract says, it doesn't give them a free pass to damage property even if they are "just getting the equipment back."

  What protection?  I don't think you understand what a contract is.  You don't get some mythical shield to do whatever the hell you want to someone else's property.

Are you trolling?

I think some of you missed the point that it's a 1000 gallon tank that's buried in the ground. It's not like I can just dig it up myself or leave it there conveniently. I can't exactly bury another one beside it. If someone would do a switch I'd consider in a second, but it's not cheap to excavate the old one, then have it sitting there in my driveway while I argue with the old company to come and get it.

Cutting the top off might be entertaining, but not recommended since it's a propane tank!

You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.

highmktgoods said:   You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.

  

Have you even read any of the preceding discussion?  The contract was NOT with the OP, so it does not matter what the original contract says.  If the company still owns the containers, sounds like they should be in contact with the party they made a contract with for their payment for the items. 
 

Mickie3 said:   
highmktgoods said:   You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.

  

Have you even read any of the preceding discussion?  The contract was NOT with the OP, so it does not matter what the original contract says.  If the company still owns the containers, sounds like they should be in contact with the party they made a contract with for their payment for the items. 



---------------------




Yes, I did read the entire post and several responses. 

If I finance the cost of a central air conditioning unit and grant the seller a security interest in the A/C, but then I sell the house and cease making payments, does the new owner of the house get to keep the A/C and the security interest is extinguished?
No. The seller will be legally able to go onto the property and take the A/C, regardless of the new owner's will.

This is a legal principle.

Another example: If I purchase a car and finance it with the bank, and the car is parked on my driveway, but then I sell my house to another and leave the car on the driveway, can the car be repo'd? Of course it can. Will the repo man be charged with trespassing? No.

Same principle here. The reason OP could benefit from reviewing the original contract is to see if there is a right to reenter and take the unit or whether there is a security interest.






 

  

There's a legal process for doing that highmktgoods. It's a lien, and they are commonly applied to houses and cars. An important aspect of them is that they are filed with a government authority and discoverable by anyone who might be interested in purchasing the property. If that or some transfer contract at the time of purchase have not been signed by the new owner, there's no contract for him. You can't just 'declare' that someone has a security interest in property, it is a specific and formal process.

I think Arrow should have put a mechanic lien on the property, then the title insurance company would have properly reimbursed Arrow. Obviously it was a small amount and therefore didn't make sense to go with this route. But for larger amount like a/c in the above example it would have been the proper way to recover amount due.


=28pxEdit: SlimTim beat me to it.

 

SlimTim said:   There's a legal process for doing that highmktgoods. It's a lien, and they are commonly applied to houses and cars. An important aspect of them is that they are filed with a government authority and discoverable by anyone who might be interested in purchasing the property. If that or some transfer contract at the time of purchase have not been signed by the new owner, there's no contract for him. You can't just 'declare' that someone has a security interest in property, it is a specific and formal process.
  
I'm aware of the general legal process. It's been awhile since I've turned to Article 9, and I realize that what I'm writing is subject to OP's State's version of the UCC A9.

Mechanics liens have nothing to do with OP's situation.

A9 creates a right of self help to reposesss. 9-609(b)(2).

If there was a valid and perfected security interest in the items, then OP has no beef.

edit: Spelling
 

(b) [Judicial and nonjudicial process.]

A secured party may proceed under subsection (a):

(1) pursuant to judicial process; or

(2) without judicial process, if it proceeds without breach of the peace.

Is trespassing with intentional property damage not breaching said peace? I think 9-609(b) is valid is the contract stated repossession of the items was within the security holder's rights, allowing them access to the property without breaking the law. Without a contract with OP, they are trespassing, and surely with property damage they lost the protection afforded by the above legislation.

highmktgoods said:   
SlimTim said:   There's a legal process for doing that highmktgoods. It's a lien, and they are commonly applied to houses and cars. An important aspect of them is that they are filed with a government authority and discoverable by anyone who might be interested in purchasing the property. If that or some transfer contract at the time of purchase have not been signed by the new owner, there's no contract for him. You can't just 'declare' that someone has a security interest in property, it is a specific and formal process.
  
I'm aware of the general legal process. It's been awhile since I've turned to Article 9, and I realize that what I'm writing is subject to OP's State's version of the UCC A9.

Mechanics liens have nothing to do with OP's situation.

A9 creates a right of self help to reposesss. 9-609(b)(2).

If there was a valid and perfected security interest in the items, then OP has no beef.

edit: Spelling

 

  

Glad to see that you have a copy of the UCC gandy, now please, so you don't look like such an idiot, go take classes at a community college, trade school, anywhere to learn what you are reading.  Its rather obvious that:
a) you have never taken any legal education course
or
b) cheated like hell to pass a course or failed it, if, in fact you have taken one.
 

highmktgoods said:   You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.
 

In your opinion, how much damage are they legally allowed to do in order to retrieve their stuff? Say the old owners took the bait stations with them. Could Arrow keep digging up the yard, could they break into the garage or look in the attic?

saladdin said:   
Glitch99 said:   
drodge said:   
  No one will fill it other than the company who owns it, and if they won't come get it you're screwed.  

I'm still not understanding - neither of those things even imply that you are required to use that company's tank with that company's propane. Just get your own tank (or have another supplier bring you one), and let the current one just sit there unused.
  

I live in TN and no company will touch another's tank. Ever. Will not happen. I have never in my over 40 years heard of anyone getting a refill from another supplier. And that includes my personal experience.  If it's another companies tank a new company will not even bother coming out unless you want to put THEIR tank on your land.

Businesses have these unwritten agreements.

Did you even read the post you responded to?

gruntwork said:   I think Arrow should have put a mechanic lien on the property, then the title insurance company would have properly reimbursed Arrow. Obviously it was a small amount and therefore didn't make sense to go with this route. But for larger amount like a/c in the above example it would have been the proper way to recover amount due.
 

  You can't put a lien on your own property. If use of the stations was included as part of the service contract, Arrow never stopped owning them. Throughout this thread this has never been nailed down - OP may have to go after the seller for selling OP something he had no title to, and for the damages caused by Arrow collecting their property, rather than going after Arrow. After all, the damage was incidental to removing the bait stations, not some malicious act of vandalism or negligence.

sackoloot said:   
highmktgoods said:   You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.

 

In your opinion, how much damage are they legally allowed to do in order to retrieve their stuff? Say the old owners took the bait stations with them. Could Arrow keep digging up the yard, could they break into the garage or look in the attic?

  
Who said anything about them being able to damage OP's property legally?

 

Mickie3 said:   
highmktgoods said:   
SlimTim said:   There's a legal process for doing that highmktgoods. It's a lien, and they are commonly applied to houses and cars. An important aspect of them is that they are filed with a government authority and discoverable by anyone who might be interested in purchasing the property. If that or some transfer contract at the time of purchase have not been signed by the new owner, there's no contract for him. You can't just 'declare' that someone has a security interest in property, it is a specific and formal process.
  
I'm aware of the general legal process. It's been awhile since I've turned to Article 9, and I realize that what I'm writing is subject to OP's State's version of the UCC A9.

Mechanics liens have nothing to do with OP's situation.

A9 creates a right of self help to reposesss. 9-609(b)(2).

If there was a valid and perfected security interest in the items, then OP has no beef.

edit: Spelling



 

  

Glad to see that you have a copy of the UCC gandy, now please, so you don't look like such an idiot, go take classes at a community college, trade school, anywhere to learn what you are reading.  Its rather obvious that:
a) you have never taken any legal education course
or
b) cheated like hell to pass a course or failed it, if, in fact you have taken one.


 

  
Once you're finished making ad hominem attacks, will you care to dispute what I've written with some legal brilliance of your own?

It seems that I won't win in an argument on the internet anyhow. I bow out.
 

Isn't highmktgoods an atty?

C'mon people do your research before criticising others

Hell, dig through all the paperwork and see if you can find anything in regards to the contract, warranty, equipment. Then take that along with photos of the damage to the company and yes I do mean get off you ass and walk on down to the company that yanked the equipment out of the ground.

The corporate reps have already found this thread and have reached out to op.kevin burns is a longtime arrow executive in charge of business development and cares about satisfying people and the corporate reputation.

That's the route I would take - at a minimum I would contact kevin and demand they replace the bait traps, with fresh bait , for your ordeal . At no cost . Then you can decide if you want to continue service with them , and of course you would ensure its quarterly service at a discounted rate - not the yearly service at full price

If they refuse ,get an estimate from another provider to have the items taken replaced (about $800 you say?) then sue them in small claims . Make them prove there was an agreement that the units remained their property . If they can't locate the original agreement with the prior owner (not the "standard contract " they may claim they always use) then there's no proof they own the units and they must pay for replacement of what was taken

The full retail replacement price

Well Said SIS,
I have contacted Kevin and am in talks with Arrow currently. Police report was also filed with proper documentation. I appreciate everyone's interest and comments.

TedHong said:   
SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Isn't highmktgoods an atty?

C'mon people do your research before criticising others

  
That mickie person seemed particularlly nasty.  Told the other person to go back to community college.

All I can say is wow!  I would never approach such an arrogant person for help even if I thought they knew what they are talking about..

 
You're not helping, you're just stirring up the drama pot.

TedHong said:   
SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Isn't highmktgoods an atty?

C'mon people do your research before criticising others

  
That mickie person seemed particularlly nasty.  Told the other person to go back to community college and said that the person must have cheated their way through classes if they ever took them.

All I can say is wow!  I would never approach such an arrogant person for help even if I thought they knew what they are talking about..

  

Created an alt--id just for these comments, eh?

Oh, well, think what you want, but if someone posts a recipe for cake and the ingredient list they have includes lye, ammonium nitrate, hydrosulphuric acid, etc., you don't have to be Julia Childs to know that they are full of shit, do you?  Are you going to sit by and hope that nobody heeds their advice without saying something? 

IMO, when someone starts citing something, they ought to at least have a clue of what they are talking about and all this talk of someone other than you being able to bind you to a contract is not a lot different than the aforementioned cake recipe.


 

TedHong said:   If you disagree, a simple statement about how the UCC (uniform commercial code?) does not apply would be helpful. I couldn't make anything out of the hate filled rant. And your alliterations about chemicals tells me that you just want to hear yourself talk.

So we will move along.

  Do you know what alliteration is?  Allusion to chemicals was perhaps was the phrase you were looking for?

qwerty12345otron said:   
TedHong said:   If you disagree, a simple statement about how the UCC (uniform commercial code?) does not apply would be helpful. I couldn't make anything out of the hate filled rant. And your alliterations about chemicals tells me that you just want to hear yourself talk.

So we will move along.

  Do you know what alliteration is?  Allusion to chemicals was perhaps was the phrase you were looking for?

  
Clearly chemicals can't convey Ted's titilating tale, telling though it is.

Throw a brick through their store front window and call it good.

boards5503 said:   Throw a brick through their store front window and call it good.
  Even better. Make it termite infested wood and watch through the years as the building slowly falls down. Long term revenge.

Mickie3 said:    
TedHong said:   
SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Isn't highmktgoods an atty?

C'mon people do your research before criticising others

  
That mickie person seemed particularlly nasty.  Told the other person to go back to community college and said that the person must have cheated their way through classes if they ever took them.

All I can say is wow!  I would never approach such an arrogant person for help even if I thought they knew what they are talking about..

  

Created an alt--id just for these comments, eh?

Oh, well, think what you want, but if someone posts a recipe for cake and the ingredient list they have includes lye, ammonium nitrate, hydrosulphuric acid, etc., you don't have to be Julia Childs to know that they are full of shit, do you?  Are you going to sit by and hope that nobody heeds their advice without saying something? 

IMO, when someone starts citing something, they ought to at least have a clue of what they are talking about and all this talk of someone other than you being able to bind you to a contract is not a lot different than the aforementioned cake recipe.  

going to try to make that delicious sounding cake tonight

TedHong said:   
qwerty12345otron said:   
TedHong said:   If you disagree, a simple statement about how the UCC (uniform commercial code?) does not apply would be helpful. I couldn't make anything out of the hate filled rant. And your alliterations about chemicals tells me that you just want to hear yourself talk.

So we will move along.

  Do you know what alliteration is?  Allusion to chemicals was perhaps was the phrase you were looking for?

  
 I meant to say an onomatopoeia of chemicals.   Wow!  the grammer police are tough here.


Uh, did you mean cornucopia of chemicals? Unless there were bees buzzing around that lethal exploding cake that goes boom, the onomatopoeia of chemicals just didn't show up.
  

Would the stand your ground law apply here? "He came at me with a shovel and I feared for my life"

sackoloot said:   
highmktgoods said:   You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.

In your opinion, how much damage are they legally allowed to do in order to retrieve their stuff? Say the old owners took the bait stations with them. Could Arrow keep digging up the yard, could they break into the garage or look in the attic?
Maybe we need to go back and characterize this correctly - they didnt "damage OP's property", like you are implying that they did something like ran over a fence or uprooted trees or busted down doors in the quest for their bait stations. They simply removed the stations, leaving OP's property in virtually the exact same condition - the holes have been there all along, now there just isn't a station filling each one. This isn't saying they were right or wrong, but lets stop equating this to them destroying his yard doing donuts on 4-wheelers or holding him at gunpoint while they searched for the stations.
  

Glitch99 said:   
sackoloot said:   
highmktgoods said:   You need to see the original contract to see your rights.

Also, they may have a valid security interest in the items. The general rule is that they are allowed to repossess their items as long as they do not cause a breach of the peace.

As far as damages, the original purchaser may have indemnified the company from damages resulting from removal. Your remedy would be to go after the original purchaser (as their non-payment caused the removal).

You need to be able to reduce your damages to dollars. It sounds like the holes they dug and other damage they caused is not going to amount to much $$$.

IANYL.

As an aside: a decade ago, I used to install home security systems. And once in a while, I repossessed them if the buyer changed their mind within a certain window (3 days in my case). We were not obligated to patch their walls or plug holes in doors, etc. I was always kind enough to reconnect their phone lines so that they worked as before, but we weren't even obligated to do that.

In your opinion, how much damage are they legally allowed to do in order to retrieve their stuff? Say the old owners took the bait stations with them. Could Arrow keep digging up the yard, could they break into the garage or look in the attic?

Maybe we need to go back and characterize this correctly - they didnt "damage OP's property", like you are implying that they did something like ran over a fence or uprooted trees or busted down doors in the quest for their bait stations. They simply removed the stations, leaving OP's property in virtually the exact same condition - the holes have been there all along, now there just isn't a station filling each one. This isn't saying they were right or wrong, but lets stop equating this to them destroying his yard doing donuts on 4-wheelers or holding him at gunpoint while they searched for the stations.
  

I was just asking about where the line was. If you are allowed to allowed to bypass the legal system to get your property back, where is the line?
We know that if Arrow had mistakenly taken op's property there is no line. He would have to ask for it back, call the police or sue them.

As long as we're correctly characterizing the situation. The traps were worthless to Arrow. They could not reuse them for a new install. They just didn't want op getting any value, because he did not want to pay them for their service. It's not like these traps were sitting idle when they could have been generating revenue elsewhere and keeping the company from making payroll.

You people redded the only post that made any sense. This matter is controlled by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Unless OP is a registered and licensed and bonded application service or qualifies for special certification as a farmer it is a serious matter to interfere with the removal http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.      If necessary the pest control company can get one of the US Marshals to accompany them to recover the equipment. EPA says they have the right to come on the property and recover the equipment. OPs possession of the equipment without a license and obstructing the removal can be prosecuted as a felony. If you have had possession more than 90 days and have not filed Pesticide Recordkeeping Program (PRP) in your personal name the pest control company has an absolute right to come get the equipment. Georgia has registered to enforce this so I would imagine it would be a state trooper instead of a US Marshall accompanying the service provider.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1545_1b7d.pdf      tells you why FIFRA not your local state laws controls.

SAckoloot FIFFRA specifies how the units must be disposed of. If OP wasn't qualified to possess them and did not make arrangements for safe disposal the pest control company has every right under the US Constitution to come get them. Just like the city of Arlington had to issue building permits for cell towers whether they liked it or not. Arrow is now secondarily responsible for the safe disposal if OP is being a block head and not doing it himself.

nsdp said:   You people redded the only post that made any sense. This matter is controlled by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Unless OP is a registered and licensed and bonded application service or qualifies for special certification as a farmer it is a serious matter to interfere with the removal http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.       If necessary the pest control company can get one of the US Marshals to accompany them to recover the equipment. EPA says they have the right to come on the property and recover the equipment. OPs possession of the equipment without a license and obstructing the removal can be prosecuted as a felony. If you have had possession more than 90 days and have not filed Pesticide Recordkeeping Program (PRP) in your personal name the pest control company has an absolute right to come get the equipment. Georgia has registered to enforce this so I would imagine it would be a state trooper instead of a US Marshall accompanying the service provider.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1545_1b7d.pdf       tells you why FIFRA not your local state laws controls.

SAckoloot FIFFRA specifies how the units must be disposed of. If OP wasn't qualified to possess them and did not make arrangements for safe disposal the pest control company has every right under the US Constitution to come get them. Just like the city of Arlington had to issue building permits for cell towers whether they liked it or not. Arrow is now secondarily responsible for the safe disposal if OP is being a block head and not doing it himself.

  
What's up with people linking to things that don't actually support what they say?  That link had nothing to do with removal of the spent devices, EPA saying they "have a right to come on the property and recover the equipment" or anything else that was claimed.  Where are you getting this stuff from?  Copy and paste relevant text of what you're claiming as fact along with a link to where you got the text.

As for the PRP '90 days' reference: "The pesticide recordkeeping regulations require the certified private pesticide applicator to record the following for each restricted use pesticide application, within 14 days of the application."  In other words, PRP is a requirement for the applicator to record applications.  Where do you see anything about 90 days of possession?

What's up with the random link to a supreme court decision?  Is that to demonstrate federal trumping state?  That's nice.

I've read the constitution, not sure I remember anything about pesticides.  But I do know that the fifth amendment to the constitution states that "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  And I know =13pxthe fourth amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No way did "Arrow Exterminators" have a legal right to trespass.  Open to any evidence to the contrary, but you haven't provided that.

Cowbell master be prepared to be proven wrong.

1. OP cannot claim ownership of the bait traps because he is not a licensed applicator. He is what is known as a Bailee. Someone who holds another's property. He does not want to claim ownership because any one owning or possessing chemicals is subject to criminal consequences.


bailment

Definition
Transfer of personal property by one party (the bailor) in the possession, but not ownership, of another party (the bailee) for a particular purpose. Such transfer is made under an express or implied contract (called bailment contract or contract of bailment) that the property will be redelivered to the bailor on completion of that purpose, provided the bailee has no lien on the goods (such as for non-payment of its charges). The bailee is under an obligation to take reasonable care of the property placed under its possession. Bailment contracts are a common occurrence in everyday life: giving clothes to a launderer, leaving car with an auto mechanic, handing over cash or other valuable to a bank, etc.http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bailment.html


2.This is Florida's synopsis which translates bureaucratic gibberish into something most people can understand.
Since pesticides have become an integral part of controlling pests, a succession of federal and state laws has addressed their changing role and regulation. In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed and was charged with enforcing FIFRA, which was again amended in 1972. Pesticide laws and regulations were refocused with the basic goals of:

Requiring EPA registration of all pesticides, each use of the pesticide, and product label approval.

Classifying all registered pesticides as either “general use” which can be used by anyone, or “restricted use” which requires licensing.

Establishing certification and licensing programs carried out by individual states that must meet at least minimal FIFRA requirements, although they are allowed to be more stringent. Licensed applicators are considered to be either “private” or “commercial” applicators.

Establishing tolerances for pesticide residues which may legally remain on raw agricultural products or in processed food.

Penalizing pesticide users for “use inconsistent with the labeling” of a pesticide.

Making it illegal to store or dispose of pesticides or containers other than as directed by regulations and penalizing for illegal handling of containers.

Providing civil penalties when there is an unintentional violation of a regulation. Fines can be $1,000 for private applicators and others and as much as $5,000 for each offense by commercial applicators.

Providing criminal penalties when the law is knowingly violated. The maximum penalty for private applicators and others is $1,000 and/or 30 days in prison. Commercial applicators may be fined up to $25,000 or one year in prison, or both. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi168

Best case if he wants to pursue the matter is he gets fined $1K and his trespass case is thrown out under equitable estoppel. You cannot be compensated for your own illegal act.

3. As bailee OP must provide access to the property. UCC7.403 "A bailee shall deliver the goods to a person entitled under a document of title". Remember OP doesn't want to claim any ownership interest because that could get him fined and sent to jail. Remember this is a federal criminal violation so you do time day for day and the court does not have the authority to give probation unless recommended by the AUSA.

Apparently the two attorneys he went to see have more common sense than he does. They obviously recognized his duty as a bailee or"warehouseman" under the Uniform Commercial Code and didn't want any part of aiding and abetting a FIFFRA violation.

This will be the worst thread ever if OP gets this problem resolved, but never updates the thread with what happened!

With ARROW reaching out to the OP in this thread- obviously there has to be some movement!

nsdp said:   Cowbell master be prepared to be proven wrong.

LET'S DO THIS!!
nsdp said:   
1. OP cannot claim ownership of the bait traps because he is not a licensed applicator. He is what is known as a Bailee. Someone who holds another's property. He does not want to claim ownership because any one owning or possessing chemicals is subject to criminal consequences.

 


OP has spent termite traps on his property. No need to get dramatic, he's not going to face "criminal consequences" for "owning or possessing" chemicals when in reality he had a termite remediation system previously (correctly, we assume) installed on HIS property that he lawfully purchased.
nsdp said:   
bailment

Definition
Transfer of personal property by one party (the bailor) in the possession, but not ownership, of another party (the bailee) for a particular purpose. Such transfer is made under an express or implied contract (called bailment contract or contract of bailment) that the property will be redelivered to the bailor on completion of that purpose, provided the bailee has no lien on the goods (such as for non-payment of its charges). The bailee is under an obligation to take reasonable care of the property placed under its possession. Bailment contracts are a common occurrence in everyday life: giving clothes to a launderer, leaving car with an auto mechanic, handing over cash or other valuable to a bank, etc.http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bailment.html  

 


I bolded the most important part of this post, namely the ones dealing with a contract. Arrow had no contract, express or implied, with OP. Arrow also had no authority over OP or his property. I can see an argument for ownership of the system staying with Arrow, although I believe Arrow needs to take that up with the seller of the property. But for sure, Arrow has no authority without going through proper court channels to trespass on OP's land.
nsdp said:   
<snipped a bunch of tidbits about EPA history, Florida, and pesticide application laws relating to agricultural products or processed foods, labeling, blah blah blah... OP is not a pesticide applicator so all of it is irrelevent.>

3. As bailee OP must provide access to the property. UCC7.403 "A bailee shall deliver the goods to a person entitled under a document of title". Remember OP doesn't want to claim any ownership interest because that could get him fined and sent to jail.


You cited UCC7-403 but only included part of the first sentence that suits your point. The full text paints a different picture:


(a) A bailee shall deliver the goods to a person entitled under a document of title if the person complies with subsections (b) and (c), unless and to the extent that the bailee establishes any of the following:

(1) delivery of the goods to a person whose receipt was rightful as against the claimant;

(2) damage to or delay, loss, or destruction of the goods for which the bailee is not liable;

(3) previous sale or other disposition of the goods in lawful enforcement of a lien or on a warehouse's lawful termination of storage;

(4) the exercise by a seller of its right to stop delivery pursuant to Section 2-705 or by a lessor of its right to stop delivery pursuant to Section 2A-526;

(5) a diversion, reconsignment, or other disposition pursuant to Section 7-303;

(6) release, satisfaction, or any other fact affording a personal defense against the claimant; or

(7) any other lawful excuse.

(b) A person claiming goods covered by a document of title shall satisfy the bailee's lien if the bailee so requests or the bailee is prohibited by law from delivering the goods until the charges are paid.

(c) Unless a person claiming the goods is one against which the document of title does not confer a right under Section 7-503(a):

(1) the person claiming under a document shall surrender possession or control of any outstanding negotiable document covering the goods for cancellation or indication of partial deliveries; and

(2) the bailee shall cancel the document or conspicuously indicate in the document the partial delivery or be liable to any person to which the document is duly negotiated.
 


Not quite so cut and dry now, eh?

nsdp said:   
Remember this is a federal criminal violation so you do time day for day and the court does not have the authority to give probation unless recommended by the AUSA.

 


Very scary if only it were relevant or true.

The owner of a termite trap system isn't going to jail for denying some crackpot exterminators access to his property.

Apparently the folks in GA don't know about these laws against servicing the bait traps yourself... There is a store right off I-85 in Atlanta that anyone can stop in to buy their own bait stations and bait sticks. You can also buy all sorts of other pro grade pesticides for insect control.
http://store.doyourownpestcontrol.com/crawling-insects/termite-c...



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014