Fixture (property law)

Last updated
A bathroom sink fixture out of order Fixturephoto.jpg
A bathroom sink fixture out of order

A fixture, [1] as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property (usually land). Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which, in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale, is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking, the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land, the article is likely a fixture; if the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel. [2]

Contents

Chattel property is converted into a fixture by the process of attachment. For example, if a piece of lumber sits in a lumber yard, it is a chattel. If the same lumber is used to build a fence on the land, it becomes a fixture to that real property. In many cases, the determination of whether property is a fixture or a chattel turns on the degree to which the property is attached to the land. For example, this problem arises in the case of a trailer home. In this case, the characterization of the home as chattel or realty will depend on how permanently it is attached, such as whether the trailer has a foundation.

The characterization of property as a fixture or as chattel is important. In most jurisdictions, the law respecting the registration of security against debt, or proof that money has been lent on the collateral of property, is different for chattels than it is for real property. For example, in the province of Ontario, Canada, mortgages against real property must be registered in the county or region's land titles office. However, mortgages against chattels must be registered in the province-wide registry set up under the Personal Property Security Act .

In the case of a trailer home, whether it is a fixture or chattel has a bearing on whether a real property mortgage applies to the trailer. For example, most mortgages contain a clause that forbids the borrower from removing or demolishing fixtures on the property, which would lower the value of the security. However, there have been cases where lenders lend money based on the value of the trailer home on the property, where that trailer is later removed from the property. Similarly, a chattel mortgage granted to allow a person to purchase a trailer home could be lost if the trailer is later attached to real property.

The law regarding fixtures can also cause many problems with property held under a lease. Fixtures put in place by the tenant belong to the landlord if the tenant is evicted from the property. This is the case even if the fixture could have legally been removed by the tenant while the lease was in good standing. For example, a chandelier hung by the tenant may become the property of the landlord. Although this example is trivial, there have been cases where heavy equipment incorporated into a plant has been deemed to have become fixtures even though it was sold as chattels.

Because the value of fixtures often exceeds the value of the land they are affixed to, lawsuits to determine whether a particular item is a chattel or a fixture are common. In one case in Canada, a provincial government argued that a huge earth dam was a chattel, as it was only held in place by gravity and not by any type of affixation (the claim was rejected). In a sale of land, fixtures are treated as part of the land, and may not be removed or altered by the seller prior to the transfer of the land.

Fixtures are known in civil law as essential parts. [3]

Trade fixtures

An important exception to the usual treatment of fixtures is the category of trade fixtures (often called "chattel" fixtures), chattels installed by a tenant on leased commercial property specifically for their use in a trade or business. These may always be removed by the tenant, so long as any damage to the structure caused by the removal is repaid or repaired. For example, business signage, display counters, store shelves, liquor bars, and machining equipment are often firmly, if not almost permanently, attached to the building or land. However, they remain personal property and can be removed by the tenant, since they are part of the tenant's business.

The economic logic behind this exception for trade fixtures reckons that if tenants could not remove them, then landlords would bear the responsibility of outfitting their tenants with such equipment and materials.

By deduction, therefore, a trade fixture is not a fixture at all. Its name is misleading, since a fixture, by definition, is real property that must remain with the real estate when a seller sells it or a tenant leaves her lease. A trade "fixture" is not real property, but personal property of the tenant.

The landlord does have some protection. Any damage to the real property caused by the tenant's removal of trade fixtures must be repaired or paid for by the tenant. If a trade fixture is not removed when the tenant moves out, those trade fixtures become the landlord's property through the process of accession. For example, if a restaurant goes bankrupt and the owner forgoes his right and the expense of removing all the kitchen equipment, dining booths and other trade fixtures, those trade fixtures become the landlord's property. In this manner, they will no longer be trade fixtures and can actually become regular fixtures, hence real property.

Law in Australia

In the absence of agreement between the parties, [4] [5] the doctrine of fixtures, subject to statute, [6] operates to resolve contests concerning title to objects.

Whether a chattel by its nature, [7] [8] [9] [10] becomes a fixture by virtue of all the circumstances, [11] [12] [13] [14] surrounding their annexation to land, [9] [15] [16] depends upon (i) the purpose and (ii) degree of annexation. [17] [18] [19] Semble, it is a mixed question of fact and law, [7] [20] to be determined objectively, [5] [21] [22] [23] the subjective intention being a consideration. [8] [23] [24] [25]

Intention of annexation

Intention may be ascertained from the annexing party's relation to the land's possessor, [8] when the chattel's use is contemplated, [5] not from the party's agreement. [21] [26] [27] Objects brought onto land by tenants may become fixtures, [6] [28] and this fact may be a significant determining factor. [9] [29]

Purpose of annexation

Since Palumberi v Palumberi, [12] greater emphasis has been directed to the purpose of annexation. Each case depends upon its own facts, [30] however a guiding test, [31] is whether a chattel has been fixed with the intention that it shall remain in position 'permanently or for an indefinite or substantial period', [17] or only for some temporary purpose. [17] [32] [33] : p 712–3 

Degree of annexation

Where the object is not resting by its own weight, [8] [7] [17] [34] [35] this will raise the rebuttable presumption, [23] [36] that the chattel is a fixture. [14] [15] [16] [24] Non-affixed objects may become fixtures especially when they will be used for an extensive period. [37] [38] [39]

Further indicators include whether the object can be detached without substantial damage being caused, [17] [40] [41] [42] whether it was fixed for the better enjoyment of the land, [39] [43] or the object itself, [17] [26] [31] [44] the period of time in use and its function, [5] the function served by its annexation, [31] and whether the cost of renewal would exceed the value of the property. [38]

Tenant's rights of removal

A tenant's right of removal does not extend to agricultural fixtures at common law. [45] However, under New South Wales legislation, tenants can remove agricultural fixtures in certain circumstances, subject to landlords' statutory rights pertaining to fixtures. [46]

In most commercial real estate leases, a tenant has the obligation to restore the leasehold improvements back to a base building condition at the expiry of the lease term. [47]

See also

Related Research Articles

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiduciary</span> Person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frustration of purpose</span>

Frustration of purpose, in law, is a defense to enforcement of a contract. Frustration of purpose occurs when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, and both parties knew of the principal purpose at the time the contract was made. Despite frequently arising as a result of government action, any third party or even nature can frustrate a contracting party's primary purpose for entering into the contract. The concept is also called commercial frustration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collateral contract</span>

A collateral contract is usually a single term contract, made in consideration of the party for whose benefit the contract operates agreeing to enter into the principal or main contract, which sets out additional terms relating to the same subject matter as the main contract. For example, a collateral contract is formed when one party pays the other party a certain sum for entry into another contract. A collateral contract may be between one of the parties and a third party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Express trust</span> Trust which is explicitly created and not inferred from the parties conduct

In trust law, an express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." Property is transferred by a person to a transferee, who holds the property for the benefit of one or more persons, called beneficiaries. The trustee may distribute the property, or the income from that property, to the beneficiaries. Express trusts are frequently used in common law jurisdictions as methods of wealth preservation or enhancement.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. It empowers the Commonwealth to make laws regarding the acquisition of property, but stipulates that such acquisitions must be on just (fair) terms. The terms is sometimes referred to in shorthand as the 'just terms' provision.

Australian property law, or property law in Australia, are laws that regulate and prioritise the rights, interests and responsibilities of individuals in relation to "things" (property). These things are forms of "property" or "rights" to possession or ownership of an object. Property law orders or prioritises rights and classifies property as either real and tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as the right of an author to their literary works or personal but tangible, such as a book or a pencil. The scope of what constitutes a thing capable of being classified as property and when an individual or body corporate gains priority of interest over a thing has in legal scholarship been heavily debated on a philosophical level.

In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit is a legal Latin principle related to fixtures which means that something that is or becomes affixed to the land becomes part of the land; therefore, title to the fixture is a part of the land and passes with title to the land. Consequently, whosoever owns that piece of land will also own the things attached.

Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equitable interest</span> Concept in common law legal systems

In law, an equitable interest is an "interest held by virtue of an equitable title or claimed on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust beneficiary". The equitable interest is a right in equity that may be protected by an equitable remedy. This concept exists only in systems influenced by the common law tradition, such as New Zealand, England, Canada, Australia, and the United States.

Hyatt v. Vincennes Nat. Bank, 113 U.S. 408 (1885), was a case involving the sale of property conveyed to Hyatt for a term of 50 years for all the mineral coal upon and under a described tract of land, in Knox County, Indiana, with the exclusive right to enter on the land to dig for the coal, and remove it, and to occupy with constructions and buildings as needed to obtain the coal. Hyatt would then have the right to remove all buildings or fixtures placed on the land, when the agreement expired, and to pay a fixed royalty for the coal mined.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, but is now mostly registered and sold on the real estate market. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, and legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates priority over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

<i>Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd is a leading Canadian property law case concerning commercial landlord-tenant relationships decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

<i>Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd</i>

Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd, is a land law case, in which the Privy Council held that restrictions on the right to redeem a mortgage are void. The equity of redemption means that borrowers are able to sell or obtain new mortgage finance promptly and without impinging on other dependent transactions.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

<i>Muschinski v Dodds</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Muschinski v Dodds, was a significant Australian court case, decided by the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1985. The case was part of a trend of High Court decisions to impose a constructive trust where it would be unconscionable for a legal owner of property to deny the beneficial interests of another. In this case the Court held it would be unconscionable for Mr Dodds to retain a half share of the property without first accounting for the purchase price paid by Ms Muschinski.

References

  1. ↑ "Residential Conveyancing A-Z of Key Terms and Abbreviations". Wilson Browne Solicitors.
  2. ↑ Ziff, Bruce (2006). Principles of Property Law (4th ed.). Toronto: ThomsonCarswell. p. 102. ISBN   0-459-55339-9.
  3. ↑ Section 93 of the German Civil Code:
    "Section 93 Essential parts of a thing
    "Parts of a thing that cannot be separated without one or the other being destroyed or undergoing a change of nature (essential parts) cannot be the subject of separate rights.
  4. ↑ Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Hobson v Gorringe [1897] 1 Ch 182.
  6. 1 2 North Shore Gas Company Limited v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) [1940] HCA 7 , (1940) 63 CLR 52 , High Court (Australia).
  7. 1 2 3 Monti v Barnes [1901] 1 QB 205, 207 (A.L. Smith MR).
  8. 1 2 3 4 Reid v Smith [1905] HCA 54 , (1905) 3 CLR 656 , High Court (Australia)
  9. 1 2 3 Leigh v Taylor [1902] UKHL 1 , (1902) AC 157 at 158 per Lord Halsbury L.C., House of Lords (UK).
  10. ↑ Lees & Leech Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1997] FCA 404 , Federal Court (Australia).
  11. ↑ Commissioner of State Revenue v Uniqema Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 82 at [47], (2004) 9 VR 523, Court of Appeal (Vic,Australia).
  12. 1 2 Palumberi v Palumberi [1986] NSW Conv R 55-673 (13 May 1986) Supreme Court (NSW, Australia).
  13. ↑ Pan United Marine Ltd v Chief Assessor, Singapore [2007] SGHC 21 , High Court (Singapore)
  14. 1 2 Compare with Australian Provincial Assurance Co v Coroneo [1938] NSWStRp 35 , (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700, Supreme Court (NSW,Australia).
  15. 1 2 Belgrave Nominees Pty Ltd v Barlin-Scott Airconditioning (Aust) Pty Ltd [1984] VicRp 75 , (1984) VR 947, Supreme Court (Vic,Australia).
  16. 1 2 National Australia Bank v Blacker [2000] FCA 1458 , (2000) 104 FCR 288; 179 ALR 97, Federal Court (Australia).
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328, 334 (Blackburn J)
  18. ↑ Commissioner for Railways v Valuer-General [1973] UKPC 3 , [1974] AC 328, Privy Council (on appeal from NSW).
  19. ↑ Commissioner of Stamps (WA) v L Whiteman Limited [1940] HCA 30 , (1940) 64 CLR 407 , High Court (Australia).
  20. ↑ Compage with Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] UKHL 490 , [1904] AC 461, House of Lords (UK).
  21. 1 2 Melluish v BMI (No 3) [1996] AC 454.
  22. ↑ Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Esanda Corporation Ltd (1991) 6 BPR 13,420.
  23. 1 2 3 Anthony v Commonwealth (1973) 47 ALJR 83, Text of Judgment [ permanent dead link ] (26 January 1973) High Court (Australia).
  24. 1 2 May v Ceedive Pty Limited [2006] NSWCA 369 , Court of Appeal (NSW,Australia)
  25. ↑ Compare with Ball-Guymer Ltd v Livantes (1992) 102 FLR 327 (21 November 1990) Supreme Court (ACT, Australia).
  26. 1 2 Reynolds v Ashby & Son [1904] UKHL 490 , [1904] AC 461, House of Lords (UK).
  27. ↑ Eastern Nitrogen Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 1539 , Federal Court (Australia).
  28. ↑ Eon Metals NL v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) [1991] WASC 411 , (1991) 22 ATR 601, Supreme Court (WA,Australia).
  29. ↑ Mitchell v McNeil [1909] WALawRp 27 , (1909) 11 WALR 153, Supreme Court (WA,Australia).
  30. ↑ Jiwira v Primary Industry of Bank Authority [2000] NSWSC 1094 , Supreme Court (NSW,Australia).
  31. 1 2 3 N H Dunn Pty Ltd v LM Ericsson Pty Ltd [1980] ANZ Conv R 300; (1979) 2 BPR 9241 (6 December 1979) Supreme Court (NSW, Australia)
  32. ↑ Vaudeville Electric Cinema Ltd v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74.
  33. ↑ Australian Provincial Assurance Co v Coroneo [1938] NSWStRp 35 , (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700, Supreme Court (NSW,Australia).
  34. ↑ Wiltshear v Cottrell (1853) 1 E & B 674.
  35. ↑ Australian Joint Stock Bank v Colonial Finance Mortgage, Investment & Guarantee Corporation [1894] NSWLawRp 124 , (1894) 15 LR (NSW) 464, Supreme Court (NSW,Australia).
  36. ↑ Attorney-General (Cth) v R T Co Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1957] HCA 29 , (1957) 97 CLR 146, High Court (Australia).
  37. ↑ Re Starline Furniture Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1982] 6 ACLR 312 (1 January 1982) Supreme Court (Tas, Australia).
  38. 1 2 FCT v Metal Manufacturers Ltd [2001] FCA 365 , (2001) 108 FCR 150; 46 ATR 497, Federal Court (Australia).
  39. 1 2 Interconnected items of plant and equipment used as a milk processing plant in a dairy business were held to be fixtures in National Dairies WA Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] WASCA 112 , (2001) 24 WAR 70, Court of Appeal (WA,Australia).
  40. ↑ Hellawell v Eastwood (1851) 6 Ex 295
  41. ↑ Spyer v Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183
  42. ↑ Adams v Medhurst & Sons Pty Ltd [1929] TASLawRp 7 , (1929) 24 Tas LR 48, Supreme Court (Tas,Australia).
  43. ↑ Re Cancer Care Institute of Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 37 , Supreme Court (NSW,Australia).
  44. ↑ Climie v Wood (1868) LR 3 Ex 257.
  45. ↑ Elwes v Maw (1802) 3 East 38.
  46. ↑ Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (NSW).
  47. ↑ "How to: Make good at the end of your lease". realcommercial.com.au. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.