Facts
This paper analyses a case involving property dispute. In the case, Fred bought a house worth $120,000. He used $20,000 from his savings and a bank loan of $100,000. In addition, he also spent $30,000 to fix some items in the house including a bathroom with power showers and a kitchen with built-in units. The house was valued at $160,000 after the fixing. However, Fred delayed to repay the loan and the bank decided to repossess the property. He wishes to remove the items that were not part of the house when he took it but the bank wants to take everything.
The Issue
The issue in this case is to determine whether the items that were fixed in the house are part of the house or not (Mossman & Flanagan, 2004).
The Rule
The Property Act states that any item attached to land is part of the land unless there is an agreement that states otherwise (Sinclair & McCallum, 2005). There are two elements used to determine cases related to fixtures and fittings. The first element is the extent of annexation that means the difficulty with which the item can be separated from the land. Items that are firmly fixed are treated as part of the land. The second element is the reason for annexation (Sinclair & McCallum, 2005). Items that are fixed with the aim of improving the land are fixtures. In this regard, an item is part of land if its removal damages the land to a reasonable extent.
These laws were developed to protect property owners against loses related to damage. In addition, the laws were designed to discourage people from mishandling properties not fully owned or breaching contracts (Sinclair & McCallum, 2005). In this case, the property value is expected to remain the same.
The outcome of the case facing Fred can be predicted by analysing similar cases determined in the past. One such case is Holland – v – Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 382 in which a milling machine attached to the floor with the help of nails was declared part of the land. Judge Blackburn claimed that although the machine could be easily detached, it was attached to improve the usefulness of the land. This finding indicates that the purpose of annexation is enough for an item to be treated as a fixture.
In another case, Vaudiville Electric Cinema – v – Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 274, chairs that were attached to the ground using bolts in a cinema hall were declared part of the land. According to the judges, an item that is attached to improve the land is a fixture even though it is not firmly fixed to the land. In a similar case, Lyons – v – London City and Midland Bank [1903], chairs in a cinema hall were declared not part of the land. Justice Joyce claimed that hired chairs were not meant to permanently improve the land. In addition, she also asserted that the chairs were easily detachable. In the above three cases, much consideration was given to the purpose rather than extent of annexation.
In the case Berkley – v – Poulett [1976] 242 EG 39, a statue placed on a plinth was declared a chattel but the plinth itself a fixture. Justice Scarman said that priority should be given to the purpose of annexation. In this case, an object that is firmly attached without the intention of permanently improving the land can be a fixture. The decision to give more weight to purpose than extent of annexation was reaffirmed in the case Hamp – v – Bygraves [1983] 266 EG 720.
According to the judges in this case, an item that is strongly attached to land so that it (the item) can be used and the land does not contribution to such use is a chattel. From the cases reviewed, it can be seen that the rules have to be applied depending on specific facts in each case. The rulings also indicate that the purpose of annexation should be given primary consideration in determining fixtures-fittings cases.
Analysis
As determined in Berkley – v – Poulett, Fred has a right to chattels and the bank has a right to fixtures (Ziff, 2006). It remains to prove which item is a chattel and which one is a fixture. In this case, although the power shower could be easily detached, it is a fixture because showers are normally permanent features of houses unless there is evidence to the contrary (Hamp v Bygraves). Similarly, the towel rail is a fixture because rails are normally permanently features of houses. Concealed lighting improves a house by providing light. Even though it can be removed without much damage, the lighting is a fixture because it was meant to permanently improve the house.
The term, “in-built”, means the fridge freezer, oven, hop, barbeque and tool shed are reasonably attached to the house. In addition, in-built designs are mostly used for items that are expected to be part of the house forever. Therefore, the fridge freezer, oven, hop, barbeque and tool shed are fixtures. Although the garden patio lighting can be removed without damaging the house, it is a fixture because it was attached to improve the house permanently (Berkley – v – Poulett). In this regard, the rules have increased the value of the house from $120,000 to $160,000 in favour of the bank.
Conclusion
If precedents are to be followed, Fred has no right to any of the items he attached on the house. On the other hand, the bank has a right to everything.
References
Berkley – v – Poulett [1976] 242 EG 39.
Hamp – v – Bygraves [1983] 266 EG 720.
Holland – v – Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 382.
Lyons – v – London City and Midland Bank [1903].
Mossman, M.J. & Flanagan W.F., 2004). Property law: cases and commentary, 2nd ed. Emond Montgomery, Toronto.
Sinclair, A.M. & McCallum, M. E., 2005. Introduction to real property law, 5th edn. Butterworths, Markham.
Section 62, Law of Property Aact (1925).
Vaudiville Electric Cinema – v – Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 274.
Ziff, Bruce, 2006. Principles of property law, 4th edn., Thomson, Carswell Toronto.