- 14 - for their removal. The method by which they are affixed to the ground supports the conclusion that these improvements are integral to the premises. Additionally, we find that the parties to the lease intended to integrate these improvements into the premises. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and State courts have examined intent with regard to this point.10 FNF is a family- operated business, with decedent and his family owning all of the FNF shares and the land upon which the leased premises is located and holding all the executive positions in FNF. At trial, decedent’s son testified that the decedent created FNF for his family to operate and pass down to his children and, hopefully, his grandchildren. At the time the improvements were made, 10 See Societa Italiana Di Mutua Beneficenza v. Burr, 71 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1934). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in determining whether a motor and pump were fixtures, stated that “the question of whether or not personal property attached to the land has become a fixture by reason of the method by which it is affixed is a question of intent * * *.” Id. at 500. See also Pfeifle v. Tanabe, 620 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2000). The Supreme Court of North Dakota, in interpreting a statute with similar language to California Code sec. 1019, stated that “the parties’ intent is the preeminent factor in analyzing whether an item is a trade fixture”. Id. at 174. The Court stated that the means of attachment and the adaption of the item to the purpose of the premises are evidence of this intent. Id. See also Hanson v. Ryan, 201 N.W. 749 (Wis. 1925). The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated that intent is the principal consideration in determining whether personal property placed on real estate is removable or not, in interpreting a State statute similar to California Code sec. 1019. Id. at 750-751.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011