Did the tenant install the water heater without the owner's knowledge or approval? Did the owner refuse or delay repair/replacement of the water heater when it was broken? Was there any specific agreement addressing this? Is there anything in the lease addressing this? Too many variables in this scenario. The short answer is it's a fixture but there's too many questions before you get to that.

I don't get it...since when does a tenant fix anything? 

The state lease I use addresses any improvements as permanent fixtures that must be left.

Eve

if it were me, my answer would be "over my dead body".... that's a fixture now... he offered to provide it...I said thank you...and now it's mine... 

Fred,

Talk about being in hot water...A

Primary undisputed function of the unit. Removing it is damages. Punitive damages if they do it and are told not too. The cause of action would be found in what happened when the old unit gave up and what was said. We already know what was done.

Here that would be covered in the contract. If home grown lease and not covered, attorney time since tenant has an attorney, but I would think it should remain. Cost of the battle will probably be more than the water heater

This should be covered in the contract.  I have rentals and if it happened to me I'd pay the tenant the amount they paid.  That is much cheaper than going to court and having a new water heater is a benefit.  When we go to court, everyone loses.  Time, stress, money rhythm of life, no benefit unless to protect ourselves.

IMHO the water heater now belongs to the property owner.

In my opinion the tenant should have had the landlord replace the water heater. As far as it being a fixture...the general rule of thumb is...if you need a tool to remove it, it stays. 

I don't deal with tenants (thank goodness), but my feeling is that one is going to lose. 

I think the tenant looses here. Is he  (or she) to move out and leave no hot water heater?

It is connected and a fixture much like a heating and air unit is part of the property. You cannot allow people to start taking out parts of the house when they move on. However, read the lease and decide.

The tenent will lose, but you may need to negotiate some payment to stay out of court

This is a mess - then the homeowner should insist that the tenant replace the hotwater heater - I actually think that the tenant is either liable for replacing the hot water heater that he disposed of or... he is a volunteer in that he installed the hotwater heater as a "gift" and now it is a fixture which cannot be removed. 

Oh brother that tenant is getting some hot water haha (if that were in AZ anyway).  Landlord should have replaced the H2O heater but that doesn't give the tenant a right to 1)install it without landlords written consent or 2) take it with him.

Interesting. I would say that if the tenant replaced the water heater, he surely can take it with him at the end of the lease. However, he must put back the original one that he disposed of. Hence, landlord has every right to deduct the value of the old heater and the cost to install it. 

Fred Griffin Unless there was a clause in the lease, I would say upon installation the hot water heater became a fixture and is part of and attached to the real property. After reading your answer to Mike & Eve Alexander , it looks like this is a decision for the Court.

The installation of the water heater is a significant part of the overall cost.  It makes no sense for the tenant to take the water heater with him.  

The landlord should pay for the water heater and installation as long as the tenant was not the cause of the water heater needing replacement.  This all should have been worked out before the new water heater was purchased and installed. 

Landlord used an alternative lease which has no language about this--- Going to court, even small claims is a nerve rattle and pain. Landlord may need to hire an attorney which is more expensive than the water heater ( at $300 or more an hour landlord might pay $5000 for attorney to appear. The water heater belongs to landlord. Is tenant planning on putting back old rusty one? I don't think so... Courts tend to favor tenant and feel sorry for them so even if landlord is right - the water heater belongs with real estate- will tenant come up with photos of crummy broken water heater? Offer tenant $500 as the water heater is no longer "new" - don't offer it as a credit. Offer $500 cashier's check the day after moving out and place is spic and span

Here, it belongs to the owner. If tenant removes it, tenant can be arrested.

First off there is no way the tenant did that without my approval!

So, it's staying with the property and it's in my lease !

Did the tenant obtain a building permit for the mew water heater?  I think it's required in most of Florida.

The water heater is a fixture. Why the heck would the tenant have done that? The landlord is generally required to provide hot water. If the HWH was broken, then the tenant should be reimbursed for purchasing and installing the unit.

Pro bono lawyer is wasting his time. A hot water heater is a fixture. Tenant loses and if he does take it, he will be liable for damages

I couldn't begin to answer this question... and I suspect it would also depend on local jurisdictions. But at the least, if tenant takes "his" water heater, I would think he'd have to replace the one he chucked.

fixture. period.

This should be covered in the lease/rental agreement.   It may be time for the landlord to contact an attorney.  

Legal quesion, though I know the answer. Read the lease.

A negotiated settlement is in order.

It would depend upon the contract and applicable legislation, regulations etc.

Fred Griffin - the water heater 'stays'!

Now it may be that landlord will end up compensating the tenant for that, possibly.

Depends on what the lease says!

Legal issue. 

There should be a state landlord tenant code that addresses this. Just writing up any ol' contract doesn't absolve the landlord or tenant from state laws. Go to small claims court. No lawyer necessary. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

Tenants never going to win this one. Never should have installed it.

Why a tenant would have one installed would be my question. The landlord should have undertaken the responsibility. If the tenant has receipts, pay for it. That will be so much less expensive than a litigated result. 

I suspect that the landlord will win the suit, but is it worth it?

Learned long ago that tenants will pull this nearly everytime, I dont let them do these types of repairs.

OK ask the broker on this one.

Read the lease...it should address issues like this.