- 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