"Warren" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Right....that's why we dig them up. That also lets the air out of
Warren's comments. They may be part of the landscape when they're
growing, but they have a slim chance of living through the winter, unless
you have exactly the right mini-climate right by the foundation of the
house. Even so...not likely.

Storm windows count as fixtures, too, even though they're removed from the
windows during certain seasons.

If it's the season that the storm windows aren't on the house, and they're
not stored on the property, the buyer should ask, but even if they don't,
they could still be entitled to the missing storm windows as they are
legally part of the real estate. If it's the season that the lily are
dug-up, and not in place, the buyer may still be entitled to the bulbs
just like the storm windows that aren't currently in place.

The OP has stated that they're going to be taking the bulbs before putting
the house on the market. But if the buyers are buying the house during the
season that the bulbs would normally be out of the ground, there is still
the possibility that they will be considered exactly like the storm
windows that aren't up in the off-season -- especially if there is an
empty space in the landscaping where the bulbs came from.

However, if some other landscaping replaces the missing lilies, you're
into a situation similar to a remodel. Just as a buyer isn't entitled to
storm windows replaced by new storm windows in a remodel, they wouldn't be
entitled to the old landscaping (the bulbs) when new landscaping replaces
them. (This, of course, would only apply to a situation in which the
action was taken before putting the house on the market.)

If the lilies are missing, and it's not the season that they would
normally be dug-up, then the OP could be safer in not replacing them with
something else, but I wouldn't say it's a slam-dunk. I can still imagine
some valid arguments the buyer could make in some convulsed situations.
The deciding factor in those cases may be the arguments made in defense of
the missing lilies, so it may still be advisable to put something else in
that empty space.

Would a buyer make a stink about missing lilies bulbs that weren't in the
ground when they actually bought the house? Probably not. But they might
be a gardening nut, and they might have knowledge that lilies have always
been in those empty spots. Or if they have a big case of buyer's remorse
they might include it on a "laundry list" of problems post-sale. But even
if it's unlikely that they're raise the issue, it is such an easy thing to
plant something in their place, or listing lilies (or lily bulbs) as a
fixture that is being excluded from the sale just as people frequently
list ornate chandeliers.

Why not do it right when doing it right is so simple? What's the incentive
do not do the right thing?

that last question, I'd say common sense. If the BBQ's out in the
driveway when the realtor arrives with a couple of lookers, can it be
considered part of the house? If the lookers aren't gardeners, and don't
realize that in their particular climate, cannas come out of the ground in
the winter, can they seriously expect to make an issue out of the plants? In
this case, the "right thing" is to save the lives of the plants.