Fixtures and Chattels PDF

Preview

Summary

Fixtures and Chattels...

Description

Fixtures and Chattels Importance of debate Important distinction when banks lend money to purchase a house and the mortgagor defaults on loan – bank will want to recover items as fixtures If an object is classified, as a matter of law, as a chattel, it may be removed by the person bringing it onto the land or his successors in title. Definitions Chattel – moveable personal property – not transferred in sale of land Fixture – forms part of the land – transferred in sale – must be some degree of attachment to the land – Botham v TSB – common sense approach Establishing whether an object is a fixture or a chattel -

Starting point: o Elitestone – all evidence relevant  Degree and purpose of annexation  Degree – how far is it attached – Holland v Hodgson – own weight, presumption of chattel, but may be assumed to be a fixture if intention clear  Nails deemed relevant in Holland v Hodgson  Now deemed less important and archaic  Leigh v Taylor – tapestries fixed to the wall – deemed chattels due to slight affixation to walls and only for visual purposes o Modern approach – degree and how easy to remove + intention + purpose  Elitestone case – damage? House on stilts deemed part of the land – size of the land relevant  Burden was on Mr Morris to establish his house was a fixture of the land – Dry stone wall example – chattels brought to a location to create a fixture which may be returned to a chattel  House was deemed part and parcel of the land  Deen v Andrews – greenhouses are chattels – can be removed without damage  Mew v Tristmine – houseboat is a chattel  Tower Hamlets – sculpture is a chattel  Prefabricated buildings such as sheds that have concrete bases are still chattels – Webb v Frank Bevis – severable in two parts  Ease of removal increased with modern technology  Degree of annexation less important now – LJ Scarman o Purpose of annexation:  Purpose to enjoy item more – chattel



Purpose to increase land value or improve the enjoyment of the land – fixture

Berkley v Poulett – affirmed degree and purpose test – later upheld in Hamp v Bygrave - Paintings set into oak panelling and Greek sculpture and sundial – all chattels – held on basis of the enjoyment of the paintings is merely visual not practical o BUT Re Whaley – tapestries and portraits and fixtures as they represent part of the general architectural scheme  Similar approach in D’Eyncount v Gregory – sculptures deemed part of architectural design – endorsed in Dill v Secretary of State Other relevant factors: - Lifespan (Botham v TSB) - Annexation - Attached by who? - Ease of removal - Enjoyment of land or object If permanently improving realty of land – may be a fixture If permanently improving the enjoyment of the land likely a chattel ALSO 3RD CATEGORY: PART AND PARCEL OF LAND -

-

Morgan J – Peel Land and Property v Sheerness Steel – such as: bricks used to build a wall, fixed plate glass windows forming the exterior of a building and chimney pieces installed to complete a house o ‘interconnected functions’ of items of plant may be relevant – central focus on the ‘essential character and value’ Elitestone

Right of removal of a fixture Severing of fixture to become a chattel - Contractual definitions of fixtures - Landlord-tenant – tenant can remove own fixtures BUT starting point for others is that it is landlord’s property o EXCEPTIONS: allowing tenant to recover fixtures – trade fixtures fans etc. o Ornamental or domestic fixtures – as long as no irreparable damage – Spyer v Phillipson – domestic and ornamental fixtures may be removed in their entirety by the tenant provided the injury to the land is no more than decorative o Agricultural fixtures – s10 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 o Trade fixtures – engine machinery was severable – Climie v Wood o Must compensate for any damage to the landlord’s property – Mancetter Developments Rights of removal of fixtures

-

Severance: o Where owner of land wants to remove a fixture o Where seller is selling land o Where the landlord-tenant relationship comes to an end  Starting point – any fixtures owned by landlord – Re smith  Exceptions: o Trade fixtures – Mancetterer Developments o Ornamental and domestic fixtures – Spyer o Agricultural fixtures AHA 1986

Criticism and Commentary on Fixtures and Chattels In the purpose of annexation test, there is no clear line of reasoning – always a question of fact (Pawlowski) The maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit (whatever is attached to the land becomes part of the land) is universally acclaimed to be the foundation of the modern law of fixtures Initially, the common law applied it strictly with little consideration given to the rights of non-landowners. Gradually the unbending rule that everything which is affixed to the freehold becomes part of the freehold was adapted in order to suit the exigencies of modern life – also public policy considerations – furtherance of trade, manufacture, and agriculture In Botham Sir Richard Scott expressly warned of the danger in applying too literally tests formed in old cases dealing, say, with machinery in factories to cases regarding articles in residences. The law relating to fixtures is a ‘rough and ready mechanism’ (Haley) A workable alternative might be to presume that all items attached to land will remain chattels unless it is unreasonable to remove them (Haley) It is, indeed, a sad commentary of the present law that it requires the Court of Appeal to decide whether mundane, household items, such as a sink and cooker, are fixtures and chattels – referring to Botham (Haley)...