- 9 -
improvements could be removed without injury to the premises and
whether the improvements had become an integral part of the
premises in order to determine if the improvements at issue are
removable trade fixtures under California Code section 1019 and,
thereby, not includable in decedent’s estate.
The estate contends that the improvements are removable
trade fixtures. The estate argues that removal of FNF’s
improvements would not injure the premises because removal would
cause only minor damages, which is permitted under California
law. Additionally, the estate argues that removal of the
improvements would leave the 5 acres suitable for farming because
removal is only from the underlying land and there is no
structure to be damaged. The estate further contends that the
improvements are “large erector sets, held together by screws,
nuts and steel I-beams” and, therefore, are not integral parts of
the premises.
Respondent argues that we must apply three tests to
determine whether or not an improvement is a nonremovable
fixture: (1) The manner of its annexation to the land; (2) its
adaptability to a use and purpose instrumental to that for which
the realty is used; and (3) the intention of the parties to the
lease. Respondent contends that the mutual intent of the parties
to the lease regarding the permanency of the improvements is the
most influential factor. Respondent further argues that decedent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011