The neighbor across the street was thinking about taking the front gates he installed from the rental property he was leasing.I told him he might want to check into the lease agreement to see if its an improvement to the property and thus becomes part of the property.The Texas law on this matter Im not to up on ,can anyone expand on it for me?

Not sure. It may depend on the lease. All improvements made to my rental property by tenants have included that they stay with the property when the tenant leaves.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Unless the tenant installed it, it belongs to the landlord. I think it would be theft in taking it.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

Well, I don't know about fences, but I'm pretty sure you can't take paint you put on the walls when you leave...

This is true in Indiana...unless an agreement was made otherwise before the improvment is made.

OTOH, if you talk to the landlord about it all things are generally negotiable for the right deal.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

If the fence was installed by the owner then it belongs to the owner. Fences are usually installed a few inches inside the property line so that there is no chance they can be claimed by the neighbor. If there is not a specific mention of the fence being included in the lease then the fence is the landlord's to do with as he pleases.

Once in a while over a period of 30+ years in building, owning and operating two 'small' apartment buildings, my folks would encounter a tenant that had grandiose plans to improve their rented apartment by the installation of permanent decorations and add-ons. Every single tenant's case was soundly slapped down, with a reference to the rental agreement the tenant signed upon move-in. My folks didn't want any add-ons or changes made to their properties, nor did they ever allow such.

I would instruct your 'friend' to read their rental agreement, before proceeding to deconstruct anyone else's property or improvements - regardless who installed the gate assembly.....

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

It may come down to if the gate became a fixture.
A few years ago we had a fuel supplier provide many users with 500gal overhead fuel tanks at no charge (we got 2). The tanks had clearly weld written on them that they remained the property of the fuel company & could be only used for their fuel. About a year later the supplier went broke & the receiver tried to recover the tanks. We were advised that if the tank was concreted onto the ground then it was a fixture & so became in the ownership of the property owner, if it was simply sitting on the ground , it was not a fixture & could be reclaimed. There was a lot of concreting done in a hurry on many properties !!
One would think that as the gate is probably fixed permanently, it would be a fixture.
If the fence was modified to accept the gate it would also be considered permanent.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

The fence (or gates) would probably be considered "real property" and become part of the home. Think of it this way: of you looked at a house that had a fence and a gate, then bought it, but the sellers removed the fence would you accept that? Like a built in appliance or pool? If it's built into the ground or structure, it's probably part of the property.

But, since the lessee put it in, what was his agreement with the owner? Did he get consideration in rent for the "improvement"? If so, then it's now the owner's and not the lessee's.

Improving the landlord's property is a risky proposition unless you get it clear how it's going to end up. Unless there's some serious coin involved, he's probably best off leaving them be.

Adding concrete after the fact sounds a lot like what we call here "conversion"......theft.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I would think it would depend on a couple things.

did he get compensation from the landlord in reduced rent or some other way for the installation?

did he retain the old gate and would it be replaced in the exact manner it was before it was removed?

if there was no gate before, and it was something he added, and he did not alter anything to add it, then I would take it and let the landlord request it back, better to ask forgiveness than permission sometimes.

In the past Ive put ceiling fans and blinds in an apartment, when I left I put the old fixtures back.

__________________

1982 300CD Turbo (Otis, "ups & downs") parts for sale
2003 TJ with Hemi (to go anywhere, quickly) sold
2001 Excursion Powerstroke (to go dependably)
1970 Mustang 428SCJ (to go fast)
1962 Corvette LS1 (to go in style)
2001 Schwinn Grape Krate 10spd (if all else fails)

Well its just as well you are there & not here!!

The concreting was a local government requirement under the building codes that needed to be done as a part of installation. There were many people involved (several hundred tanks) & there was ample consideration by many much better qualified in legal matters than either of us.
Had it been "theft" as you assert it sounds, without full knowledge of exactly what happened, there would have been legal process undertaken.
There was not.
It is probably fair to say that some members have experience with receivership, either as a creditor or as the party that has been declared insolvent, I have some experience with the former (as a creditor) but not the latter (becoming insolvent). Judgment is often best left to those who are properly trained in such matters.

Often people hear a sound that while appearing to be one thing, is different to what they may have thought or wanted to hear.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

It would be up to the judge as to how to treat any assets/liabilities of a company that had entered receivership. Would it not? If the tanks were left in place, it would seem to have been considered by the judge whether they were to be seized and reclaimed or not. For whatever reason(s) the tanks in possession by the Layback40 earthmoving and construction enterprises, were left undisturbed. Reading the judge's declarations and rulings on the matter would seem to make more sense, than any assertion(s) of nefarious theft.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

Have to read the lease terms on property improvements. That's the primary contract term.

If there is no specific contract term, the check the statutes on landlord/tenant.

If there are no statutes, then the common law may apply or not. The common law is that a tenant's improvements to property, which by their nature are "fixtures" are then the landlords upon the end of the lease term. The definition of "fixtures" is not absolute, however they generally include permanent in nature; or that removal would cause damage (not necessarily permanent) to the property. On the tenant's side of the equation, he may have an equitable argument of "unjust enrichment" in certain circumstances where the value of the tenant's improvement outweighs the landlord's interest.

The tenant should have --and any tenant should --Get the landlord to take the improvement off the rent, Thats the way i just did it .