• Go to page :
  • 1 23
  • Text Only
christoj879 said: SWIM
Sea Water Instrumented Manikin?

WalStMonky said: tazzy531 said: So basically what you are saying is that $400 is the difference between offloading the house for $xxxK

Isn't this a case of penny wise pound foolish?


Betcha they charge the buyer for that oil when the house goes to closing.

Pay the tenant. Don't be an asshole. No good ever came of ill got gain.


OK, so they pay to fix the walls, stove, landscaping, AND for the oil? I'm trying to tell them what is fair and I feel that if they call it even with the damage that would be good.

If that YOUR heating oil, you'll probably want it to be reimbursed too.

If I were the tenant knowing that my landlord was going to be an @#$%^, I would put tons of conditions when ending the lease early, after all ending the lease early would benefit my @#$%^ landlord.

whats SWIM

tripleB said: whats SWIM
Someone who isn't me

christoj879 said:
OK, so they pay to fix the walls, stove, landscaping, AND for the oil? I'm trying to tell them what is fair and I feel that if they call it even with the damage that would be good.


If they have receipts for fixing the walls and the stove, they could send a letter detailing the price of the fuel, subtract off the repairs, and give them a check for the difference. That's what should be done when there's a security deposit. The landlord isn't going to look good if it goes to court and his argument is, I owed them something, but there were some damages, rather than calculate anything, I figured I'd just call it even.

Alternately, explain to the landlord that had the lease run to conclusion, they would still be on the hook for the walls and stove since they failed to collect a security deposit. The tenants did them a favor by moving (landlord did request it), so they shouldn't be out $400 worth of fuel for agreeing to move out early.

Don't worry OP, I know you came here looking for an affirmation of your already conceived opinion and the good news is slumlord SIS will be on this thread in no time telling you that you had a pair of "problem" tenants (aren't they all?) and if anything they should pay you for getting rid of all this extra oil for them.

JorgeBurrito said: Don't worry OP, I know you came here looking for an affirmation of your already conceived opinion and the good news is slumlord SIS will be on this thread in no time telling you that you had a pair of "problem" tenants (aren't they all?) and if anything they should pay you for getting rid of all this extra oil for them.

lol, I like that.

retmil said: tripleB said: whats SWIMSomeone who isn't meThe more common usage of "SWIM" around here is probably "someone who is me".

nrsmimi said: I'd tell them they are welcome to come pump it out.It is customery to adjust the oil at real estate transactions. In fact the oil companies in my area will come out to measure and provide a statement if the tank doesn't have a reading.

Why create controversy when there is no need to do so? That's not how one gets ahead.

I recall from earlier that the OP remembered how many gallons of oil was there when the tenants first moved in. I wonder why.

katx said: I recall from earlier that the OP remembered how many gallons of oil was there when the tenants first moved in. I wonder why.

You can be sure he would be charging them for anything less than the move-in gallons?

If the damages to the property are legitimate, then tally them up and pay the difference.

If you're making up damages to justify keeping the oil, what goes around comes around.

Wait let me get this straight. The tenant agreed to end the lease early so the owner could sell the property and the owner is too much of a scum-sucking douchebag to refund the oil the tenant paid for?!?

I love threads like this because it exposes the scum of FW.

nrsmimi said: I'd tell them they are welcome to come pump it out.
I'd come pump it out...right into the living room window.

When we moved out of our rental house last year our landlord was required to reimburse for oil. We're in MA. He tallied up the value of the oil and added that to the security deposit refund.

You could reduce the amount by any legitimate damages and refund them the difference.

In my rental, I fill it full prior to them moving in and require them to fill it full prior to them moving out... The deposit would cover this just in case. How else do you know what they are responsible for? The gauge on the tank?

WalStMonky said: tazzy531 said: So basically what you are saying is that $400 is the difference between offloading the house for $xxxK

Isn't this a case of penny wise pound foolish?


Betcha they charge the buyer for that oil when the house goes to closing.

Pay the tenant. Don't be an asshole. No good ever came of ill got gain.


I agree. Pay the tenant. If you have legitmate dispute for other damages, then submit them a formal fix it or pay it bill. You don't simply get to call it even like that. Get a receipt for the oil and include that in the bill of sales of your home. Don't create a situation when there is none. Do the right thing. Is it that hard?

heating oil? i have never heard of it but mainly because I have always lived in warmer part of US-FL and CA.

But the OP is a jerk. I can't believe you would come here and post a question like that. From a moral, and from do unto others and you would do unto yourself standpoint, just cut a check for a fair market value of the oil. I am glad most people in FW are decent human beings judging from the replies.

I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil. Do you all also expect Hertz will pay you for the extra gasoline when you return your rental car with a full tank even though you picked up the rental car with a quarter of a tank? If the tenant left behind a fridge and a gallon of milk should the landlord also reimburse for that? Where does the line get drawn?

FYI - for the poster who mentioned that in MA (I think) that landlords are required to reimburse the tenant for extra oil by law, then I agree since it's the stated law. It sounds like in the OPs case there is no state law, so in my view the tenant has abandoned their property. Tenant should not have refilled so much oil if their lease was expiring in October anyway - there's no way they would have used that much by the end of the lease.

The tenant should have made paying for the oil a condition of leaving the house early. Not doing that was dumb.

That said, I would probably pay them the $400 less the cost of repairs of damage (walls, stive, retc.) they caused. Get it back from the home buyers at closing.

civ2k1 said: I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil.

It is Fat Wallet Forum - not Cheap Bastards Forum.

civ2k1 said: I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil. Do you all also expect Hertz will pay you for the extra gasoline when you return your rental car with a full tank even though you picked up the rental car with a quarter of a tank? If the tenant left behind a fridge and a gallon of milk should the landlord also reimburse for that? Where does the line get drawn?

FYI - for the poster who mentioned that in MA (I think) that landlords are required to reimburse the tenant for extra oil by law, then I agree since it's the stated law. It sounds like in the OPs case there is no state law, so in my view the tenant has abandoned their property. Tenant should not have refilled so much oil if their lease was expiring in October anyway - there's no way they would have used that much by the end of the lease.
I'm shocked that people give strong opinions without reading the essentials of the thread or at least the OP.

diamente said: heating oil? i have never heard of it but mainly because I have always lived in warmer part of US-FL and CA.

But the OP is a jerk. I can't believe you would come here and post a question like that. From a moral, and from do unto others and you would do unto yourself standpoint, just cut a check for a fair market value of the oil. I am glad most people in FW are decent human beings judging from the replies.


Yeah, having grown up in the south the idea of heating your house with oil was kind of surprising to me.. but a lot of homes in the NW are heated by oil (it's chemically near identical to diesel, but you aren't supposed to use it in a car or truck because road taxes haven't been paid). It's delivered by tanker regularly and you pay per the gallon. It's pretty convenient if you're out in the country and there aren't any gas lines that have been run but a lot of those kinds of houses are converting to CNG/Propane, delivered in tanks.

A place I rented when I was in college had a dual furnace, oil and gas, you could switch between them depending on which was cheaper month to month.

oopsz said: diamente said: heating oil? i have never heard of it but mainly because I have always lived in warmer part of US-FL and CA.

But the OP is a jerk. I can't believe you would come here and post a question like that. From a moral, and from do unto others and you would do unto yourself standpoint, just cut a check for a fair market value of the oil. I am glad most people in FW are decent human beings judging from the replies.
Yeah, having grown up in the south the idea of heating your house with oil was kind of surprising to me.. but a lot of homes in the NW are heated by oil (it's chemically near identical to diesel, but you aren't supposed to use it in a car or truck because road taxes haven't been paid). It's delivered by tanker regularly and you pay per the gallon. It's pretty convenient if you're out in the country and there aren't any gas lines that have been run but a lot of those kinds of houses are converting to CNG/Propane, delivered in tanks.

A place I rented when I was in college had a dual furnace, oil and gas, you could switch between them depending on which was cheaper month to month.
You guys must have lived in newer homes in the south, in Orlando many of the pre-1950's (or so) homes had oil furnaces (when they had furnaces). It's pretty common in the older neighborhoods to still see the oil tanks sitting on the side of the house, even though the house has long since converted to a heat pump system. Even worse (and we had this problem), the tank is buried in the backyard and when discovered cost $$$ to have it removed by a certified environmental company.

civ2k1 said: Tenant should not have refilled so much oil if their lease was expiring in October anyway - there's no way they would have used that much by the end of the lease.Maybe the tenant had planned on renewing their lease. Possible?

civ2k1 said: I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil. Do you all also expect Hertz will pay you for the extra gasoline when you return your rental car with a full tank even though you picked up the rental car with a quarter of a tank? If the tenant left behind a fridge and a gallon of milk should the landlord also reimburse for that? Where does the line get drawn?

FYI - for the poster who mentioned that in MA (I think) that landlords are required to reimburse the tenant for extra oil by law, then I agree since it's the stated law. It sounds like in the OPs case there is no state law, so in my view the tenant has abandoned their property. Tenant should not have refilled so much oil if their lease was expiring in October anyway - there's no way they would have used that much by the end of the lease.


Have you ever rented from Hertz? You always get a full tank and you are supposed to return it with a full tank. If you picked it up with a quarter tank, then you got screwed like how the OP is trying to screw his nice tenant. Your questions make no sense. There is no gray line in this case. If tenant intentionally left a fridge and let say a pile of garbages, he's going to be billed with a disposal fee for the landlord to get it removed.

civ2k1 said: I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil. Do you all also expect Hertz will pay you for the extra gasoline when you return your rental car with a full tank even though you picked up the rental car with a quarter of a tank? If the tenant left behind a fridge and a gallon of milk should the landlord also reimburse for that? Where does the line get drawn?

This is a different situation. Let's say Hertz asked you to return the car early ... thereby breaking the contract. You would have a claim to ask them in return to reimburse you for the fuel. I would even go as far as asking them to comp me for 1 (or more) days of rental if Hertz asked me to return the vehicle prior to the end of the contract.

The key here is that the owner is asking to terminate the contract (lease) prior to the end of the contract terms. If I was the tenant, I would not stop at the oil. I'd go as far as asking the owner to pay for my relocation/moving expense. From a economist point of view, the owner gets the benefit of terminating the contract whereas the tenant bears the costs. The owner must then decide whether the benefits of selling the property is greater than the cost of buying out the contract.

If I ask my tenant to agree to an early termination of the lease, I would offer them one month free rent. But that is me.

The truth of the matter is if the tenant was a FWF regular, he wouldn't have put himself in this position to get screwed by his ex-landlord.

scrouds said: The truth of the matter is if the tenant was a FWF regular, he wouldn't have put himself in this position to get screwed by his ex-landlord.

Disagree! CN47 and FWF has taught me to BE in that situation. If my counterparty wants to breach and void my contract... he better pay me!

If a phone company wants to change the terms of the contract, they better let me out without ETF fee. If a credit card company wants to change the terms of my agreement, they better let me refuse and keep using until expiration of my account.

As a tenant, I would be asking for oil, moving expense, and 1 month rent. I'd be happy to get 2 of the 3.

christoj879 said: pthor1231, I don't know, probably not. I also don't know when it was purchased.

delzy, there were 50 gallons in the tank when they moved in, 250 now.

SWIM never collected a security deposit (trying to be nice and help out the tenant) and there is damage to a few walls, the stove and landscaping was never performed (keeping yard clean was in the contract IIRC) while they were there.

I'm thinking they should tell the tenant they're even given what they have to fix.


That it is the reasonable course of action. Just make sure you send them an itemized bill:

Security Deposit : +$ 0.00
Heating Oil Reimbursement: -$400.00
Post Occupation Repairs : +$400.00 (itemize this if you feel like you, you don't have to)
Total Owed to Tenant : $ 0.00

TheRealRayCharles said:
Post Occupation Repairs : +$400.00 (itemize this if you feel like you, you don't have to)


Yes he does.

TheRealRayCharles said: christoj879 said: pthor1231, I don't know, probably not. I also don't know when it was purchased.

delzy, there were 50 gallons in the tank when they moved in, 250 now.

SWIM never collected a security deposit (trying to be nice and help out the tenant) and there is damage to a few walls, the stove and landscaping was never performed (keeping yard clean was in the contract IIRC) while they were there.

I'm thinking they should tell the tenant they're even given what they have to fix.


That it is the reasonable course of action. Just make sure you send them an itemized bill:

Security Deposit : +$ 0.00
Heating Oil Reimbursement: -$400.00
Post Occupation Repairs : +$400.00 (itemize this if you feel like you, you don't have to)
Total Owed to Tenant : $ 0.00


heh that bill looks shady

SS7Man said:
Have you ever rented from Hertz? You always get a full tank and you are supposed to return it with a full tank. If you picked it up with a quarter tank, then you got screwed like how the OP is trying to screw his nice tenant. Your questions make no sense. There is no gray line in this case. If tenant intentionally left a fridge and let say a pile of garbages, he's going to be billed with a disposal fee for the landlord to get it removed.


I rent cars about twice a month. Sometimes the tank is full, sometimes it's not (about 25% of the time not, 75% it is full). They always record the level of the tank when I check out the car and if I overfill there is no reimbursement.

You are all saying the landlord is getting the benefit of the oil. In my case above (fridge) the tenant an claim the landlord is getting a free fridge (whether landlord likes it or not). Landlord didn't agree to pay for the oil (assuming it's not in the contract or state law) so shouldn't have to pay for it.

And wouldn't necessarily say the tenant is nice based on the damage reported. Damaged walls? real nice. Supposed to maintain the landscaping but didn't = sounds like a saint to me. I guess next they are going to feed the poor with the weeds they didn't clean up off the lawn.

lotusgardener said: TheRealRayCharles said:
Post Occupation Repairs : +$400.00 (itemize this if you feel like you, you don't have to)
Yes he does.
...and show receipts, if asked. My college roommate and I went to small claims court with a landlord over a similar deposit scam, judge said, "If you can't prove it, give them their deposit"

tazzy531 said: civ2k1 said: I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil. Do you all also expect Hertz will pay you for the extra gasoline when you return your rental car with a full tank even though you picked up the rental car with a quarter of a tank? If the tenant left behind a fridge and a gallon of milk should the landlord also reimburse for that? Where does the line get drawn?

This is a different situation. Let's say Hertz asked you to return the car early ... thereby breaking the contract. You would have a claim to ask them in return to reimburse you for the fuel. I would even go as far as asking them to comp me for 1 (or more) days of rental if Hertz asked me to return the vehicle prior to the end of the contract.

The key here is that the owner is asking to terminate the contract (lease) prior to the end of the contract terms. If I was the tenant, I would not stop at the oil. I'd go as far as asking the owner to pay for my relocation/moving expense. From a economist point of view, the owner gets the benefit of terminating the contract whereas the tenant bears the costs. The owner must then decide whether the benefits of selling the property is greater than the cost of buying out the contract.


First off, if the tenant didn't want to move early, they didn't have to. The landlord asked and the tenant accepted (without asking for oil reimbursement as a condition). If the tenant asked for it, then they could have negotiated on that point (same as you asking Hertz for the fuel reimbursement - BEFORE agreeing to return early). I'm saying that since the tenant didn't ask before moving, they aren't entitled. As you said, the landlord has the right to consider that expense (or anything else negotiated - free month rent, moving expenses, etc) BEFORE accepting the offer. It's not fair to go back after the fact and demand payment for something the landlord was unaware of.

Finally, everyone doesn't seem to understand that the lease is ending in OCTOBER. How much oil could the tenant use during August/September? I understand October might start getting a chill, but not COLD enough to use all that oil. The tenant opted to fill that much oil KNOWING their lease was up. Even if the tenant planned to renew their lease, that doesn't mean the Landlord would have agreed. The landlord (in most areas) has the right to not offer a lease renewal and end the tenancy when the lease expires. Or, the Landlord may have offered, but at terms the tenant didn't want to agree to. What would the tenant do about the oil then.

If the lease expired in Janary (hence would be reasonable to use all that oil by the end of the lease), I might feel differently about the situation. But, in this case, I think it's pretty cut and dry.

squirrelproductions said: civ2k1 said: Tenant should not have refilled so much oil if their lease was expiring in October anyway - there's no way they would have used that much by the end of the lease.Maybe the tenant had planned on renewing their lease. Possible?

That's IF the landlord would have agreed to renew the tenant. In most locations, the landlord is free to not offer a renewal upon lease expiration and the tenant must move. It's also possible the landlord would offer terms unacceptable to the tenant (and no negotiated compromise) so again, the tenant would move leaving their oil behind (or find a way to transport it).

civ2k1 said:
First off, if the tenant didn't want to move early, they didn't have to. The landlord asked and the tenant accepted (without asking for oil reimbursement as a condition). If the tenant asked for it, then they could have negotiated on that point (same as you asking Hertz for the fuel reimbursement - BEFORE agreeing to return early). I'm saying that since the tenant didn't ask before moving, they aren't entitled. As you said, the landlord has the right to consider that expense (or anything else negotiated - free month rent, moving expenses, etc) BEFORE accepting the offer. It's not fair to go back after the fact and demand payment for something the landlord was unaware of.


I totally agree with you. OP is ambiguous whether the tenant has moved out or not. If the tenant agreed to the terms of early termination and moved out... he is SOL on the excess oil. But if they are still negotiating the move out, then it is acceptable point of negotiation.

I think we both see it the same way. It really depends on the status of the tenant, of which, OP is ambiguous about.

I talked to the landlord, they don't want to make an enemy considering this is more of a friendly arrangement than formal (they each have a close mutual friend) and are going to split it with them and take care of the fixes that need to be done.

civ2k1 said: tazzy531 said: civ2k1 said: I'm shocked at the strong response in favor of OP paying the tenant for the left over oil. Do you all also expect Hertz will pay you for the extra gasoline when you return your rental car with a full tank even though you picked up the rental car with a quarter of a tank? If the tenant left behind a fridge and a gallon of milk should the landlord also reimburse for that? Where does the line get drawn?

This is a different situation. Let's say Hertz asked you to return the car early ... thereby breaking the contract. You would have a claim to ask them in return to reimburse you for the fuel. I would even go as far as asking them to comp me for 1 (or more) days of rental if Hertz asked me to return the vehicle prior to the end of the contract.

The key here is that the owner is asking to terminate the contract (lease) prior to the end of the contract terms. If I was the tenant, I would not stop at the oil. I'd go as far as asking the owner to pay for my relocation/moving expense. From a economist point of view, the owner gets the benefit of terminating the contract whereas the tenant bears the costs. The owner must then decide whether the benefits of selling the property is greater than the cost of buying out the contract.


First off, if the tenant didn't want to move early, they didn't have to. The landlord asked and the tenant accepted (without asking for oil reimbursement as a condition). If the tenant asked for it, then they could have negotiated on that point (same as you asking Hertz for the fuel reimbursement - BEFORE agreeing to return early). I'm saying that since the tenant didn't ask before moving, they aren't entitled. As you said, the landlord has the right to consider that expense (or anything else negotiated - free month rent, moving expenses, etc) BEFORE accepting the offer. It's not fair to go back after the fact and demand payment for something the landlord was unaware of.

Finally, everyone doesn't seem to understand that the lease is ending in OCTOBER. How much oil could the tenant use during August/September? I understand October might start getting a chill, but not COLD enough to use all that oil. The tenant opted to fill that much oil KNOWING their lease was up. Even if the tenant planned to renew their lease, that doesn't mean the Landlord would have agreed. The landlord (in most areas) has the right to not offer a lease renewal and end the tenancy when the lease expires. Or, the Landlord may have offered, but at terms the tenant didn't want to agree to. What would the tenant do about the oil then.

If the lease expired in Janary (hence would be reasonable to use all that oil by the end of the lease), I might feel differently about the situation. But, in this case, I think it's pretty cut and dry.
You make excellent points none of which can be refuted, IMO. Sadly being a opportunist is not illegal, else most used car salesmen would be in jail.



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