The Major Difference Between Fittings and Fixture in Land Law - Coursework Example

The Major Difference Between Fittings and Fixture in Land Law. Introduction The Latin maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit which means that everything attached to land is a part of it underscores the significance of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings.1 To this end a fixture refers to any item that is attached to the land to such an extent that it is regarded as immovable property.2 Fittings are generally regarded as chattels and are thus movable property and do not run with the land.3 The major difference between fittings and fixtures is therefore the difference between what items a purchaser can expect to own relative to the conveyance of realty.4 The courts have devised tests for distinguishing between fixtures and fittings. These tests highlight not only the importance of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings, but the major differences between the two. Although the distinctions are not always clear, a common trend can be identified: the significance of the item in terms whether or not it has become so attached to the land, that it should not be regarded as anything other than a part of the land. This paper examines the major differences between fixtures and fittings by reference to case law. Distinguishing between Fixtures and Fittings The early case of Holland v Hodgson is a good place to start as it established two test for distinguishing between fixtures and fittings. In this case, the question was whether or not looms that had been installed at a factory could be regarded as part and parcel of the factory. Blackburn J stated that in order to determine whether or not an item was a fixture or a fitting it was necessary to consider the extent of the annexation and its purpose. In this regard, an item that was annexed to the land by virtue of its own weight would not be considered a fixture unless there was an intention that the item would form part and parcel of the land.5 What can be gleaned from this ruling is that it is first necessary to look at the item and to determine whether or not it is actually fixed to the property and not merely supported by its own weight. If it is fixed, it is a fixture and will likely be considered part and parcel of the land. However, if the item is merely supported by its own weight, then the question will remain whether or not the item was intended to be a part of the land. Buckland J offered some guidance by referencing the case of a stone wall. For instance, if stones were merely plied up on the land there is an assumption that those stones were not intended to form a part of the land. However, if the stones were situated so as to form a structured wall, it can be readily implied that they were intended to form a part of the land in question.6 The rules outlined in the Holland case were also considered in the case of Berkley v Poulett by the Court of Appeal. The case was concerned with whether articles were part and parcel of land sold by virtue of an auction. The disputed articles were pictures that had been fixed via the wall’s panelling, a marble statue that stood on a plinth on the property’s garden and a sundial. Applying the test enunciated in Holland, the Court of Appeal ruled that the pictures, were not fixtures although they had been attached to the wall’s panelling. The purpose of those fittings were purely for enjoyment and had not been intended to become part and parcel of the realty. The statue was not attached to the property as it was resting on a plinth that was in fact, annexed to the property. Therefore the plinth was part and parcel of the land, while the statue was not. This was particularly so as there was nothing capable of suggesting that the statue was intended to form a part of the landscape nor that it was merely intended to be a permanent fixture on the plinth in the garden. The sundial was also determined to be a mere fitting as it had become disconnected from the pedestal to which had been annexed for several years.7 The Berkley case thus demonstrates that although an item is fixed to the land it is not automatically a fixture. It will remain a chattel if it is illustrated that the article is no more than an item for enjoyment. However, if there is evidence that the article was annexed for the purpose of becoming a permanent part of the land the item will be regarded as a fixture rather than a mere chattel or fitting. The sundial and statue were demonstratively temporary annexations as the statue was supported by its own weight and the sundial had already been detached from the pedestal to which it had been attached. The pictures were determined to be no more than items set in place for enjoyment and as such could not be regarded as intended to form a permanent part of the land. Even so, in an older case it was determined that items such as pictures set in wall panels, satin-filled frames attached to a wall and a tapestry were permanent fixtures and as such ran with the land in question. The case is, D’Eyncourt v Gregory. Other items fitted in the garden such as statues, vases and stone seats were determined to be a part of the property’s landscape of architectural lay out and as such were fixtures. This was so regardless of whether or not these items were permanently attached. Pictures that were not set in the wall’s panels and glasses were determined to be chattels and therefore not a part of the land or its building.8 This case clearly indicates that once articles have been fixed to realty with the intention of enhancing the property’s value or forming a part of the property’s architectural landscape, it will be deemed a fixture. This rule and method of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings is entirely important for the putative purchaser. A putative purchasers inspecting the land might form a reasonable expectation that certain items are intended to form a permanent part of the land and have a reasonable expectation that those item will follow the land. This reasonable expectation might be the reason for the putative purchaser making the decision to purchase the realty at a specific price. In more recent times in Elitestone v Morris the House of Lords examined the test enunciated in Holland. In Elitestone, the main question was whether a bungalow which stood on concrete could be considered a permanent fixture. The bungalow in question had been on the property for several years and was occupied by the defendants for a period commencing in 1971. Both the owner of the land and the occupants operated on the presumption that the occupiers owned the bungalow rather than the landowner and that the rent collected was collected for the right to occupy the land upon which the bungalow rested. When a new owner took over, the rent was increased and the occupiers were subsequently served with notice to vacate along with the bungalow. The defendants argued that the bungalow formed a part of the land and as such they were tenants and entitled to protection from eviction pursuant to the Rent Acts. The Court of Appeal ruled that the bungalow was not a permanent fixture as it merely rested on the land.9 The House of Lords however, did not agree with the ruling by the Court of Appeal and found instead that the bungalow was not intended to be moved and could not be moved without entirely destroying it. The bungalow was not like a mobile home that could be removed from the property safety and intact. The mobile home could be removed, by dismantling it and reassembling it at another location. The bungalow was entirely different and could not be removed and reassembled elsewhere with ease. Therefore, regardless of what the parties had originally intended, the bungalow had become a permanent fixture.10 Lloyd LJ noted that in the context of buildings, the terms fixtures and fittings could lead to confusion. He therefore thought a more appropriate test was necessary. The test would contain three parts and was stated as follows: An object which is brought into land may be classified under one of three broad heads. It may be a) a chattel; b) a fixture; or c) part and parcel of the land itself. Objects in categories b and c are treated as being part of the land.11 The bungalow would be classified under C and thus is part and parcel of the land. Even so, the most significant part of the judgment appears to be that once an article cannot be removed from the land without rendering its destruction, it will be regarded as a fixture. The destruction test however can produce unjust results. For instance a poster may be annexed to the walls of a house by virtue of glue and its removal may completely destroy the poster. Therefore it is unlikely that this test can produce fair results in many cases. It might even be irrelevant whether or not some items are destroyed in an attempt to have them removed from the property. It may come down to the intrinsic value of the property and whether or not it is fair to have it destroyed in order to remove it from the property. A lot might depend on the extent to which the article enhances the intrinsic value of the land. Ultimately, the main distinguishing feature is the degree of the annexation of the article. If the article is annexed to the property to such an extent that its removal will result in destruction, it is regarded as a permanent fixture to the land. It therefore makes sense that the value of the object and that value that it lends to the land should be measured in terms of the degree of destruction involved in the event it is removed from the property. When the destruction test is put together with the intention test, the distinction between fixtures and fittings becomes even more obvious. If an article is attached to the land in such a way that removal can only be effected by destruction, it is only fair that an intention to make the object a permanent fixture be implied. In other words, the degree of annexation is very important and measured by reference to the difficulty by which the object can be removed. For instance in Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club v Pope, it was held that a houseboat, although moored in a permanent way and connected to important utility services would not be considered a fixture.12 It is important to note that the house boat is entirely mobile and can be safely removed without causing damages and can easily be placed elsewhere without difficulty. If the houseboat is capable of becoming a permanent fixture, many other objects would qualify when in fact it would be entirely unfair to consider those objects permanent fixtures. A lot of cases in which it is imperative to classify an object as either a permanent fixture or a fitting will turn on their own specific facts and circumstances. In one case an item will be classified as a fixture and in another may be classified as a fitting. Botham v TSB Plc is demonstrative of this fact. In Botham the bank took action for repossession of the appellant’s dwelling house as a result of an arrears of mortgage. The appellant argued that the dwelling house, the contents contained in the subject matter of the mortgaged property had been previously transferred by the appellant to a third party. It therefore fell to the courts to determine whether or not and what items were fixtures and therefore properly the property of the bank. There were over one hundred items each of which had been organized into nine separate categories. The court then proceeded to find that a majority of the items were fixtures and thus property of the bank.13 The Court of Appeal did not share the opinion of the judge at first instance. The court of appeal found that fitted carpets would not be classified as fixtures as these items can be removed with ease. As for lights that had been annexed to ceilings and walls, only those that had been placed in the ceiling’s recesses would be considered fixtures. However, everything else that could be removed without difficulty would be considered mere fittings or chattels. Similarly, gas flame-effect fires, could be disconnected with ease and would therefore be fittings. Curtains and blinds were self-explanatory as they could be removed with ease. Items such as basins, toilet roll dispensers, rails for towels and soap dishes would be regarded as fixtures as they cannot be removed without altering what would have been a permanent enhancement of the property. Similarly, bath tubs and their fittings and shower heads would be regarded as permanent fixtures designed and intended to remain a part of the land. Other permanent fixtures would include units in the kitchen such as surfaces for working and kitchen sinks. However, kitchen appliances would not be deemed permanent fixtures as they can easily be removed.14 Tenants fixtures however occupy a separate place in the general law of fixtures and fittings. Tenants are typically permitted to remove any of their own fixtures during the tenancy or lease. However, they are typically expected to repair any damages that they incur in the process. The rationale is that the property is not theirs and therefore they have no duty to improve the land, nor do they have the right to destroy its inherent value. For instance in Mancetter Developments Ltd. v. Garmanson Ltd. a tenant affixed pipes and fans in a rented factory. These items were considered tenant’s fixtures. When the tenant removed the fixtures, gaping holes remained on the property’s walls. As a result the tenant was liable for the incurred damages.15 In other words, the tenant annexes fixtures at his or her own peril. He/she is required to make good any damages to the property if and when he/she decides to remove those fixtures. It might thus be wise to weight the cost of removal against the cost of leaving the fixtures behind. The relative cost of removal gives way to a trend among the judiciary. In many cases the question is whether or not the tenant’s fixture is ornamental or a trade fixture or an agricultural fixture. This characterization will determine whether or not the tenant’s right to remove the fixture will be permitted at all. In most cases a tenant will have the right to remove a trade fixture. Obviously, if the trade fixture is removed and damages are incurred, the tenant is liable for those damages.16 As for ornamental fixtures, those fixtures cannot be removed if removal will cause damages to the property. In Martin v Roe it was held that ornamental objects could be removed by the tenant provided their removal do not cause damages to the property.17 However, in light of recent cases in which it was determined that the degree of annexation is important, and that objects are fixtures if they cannot be removed without their destruction it is unlikely that ornamental objects will classify as fixtures in modern times. Agricultural fixtures confer upon tenants a greater degree of ownerships and proprietary rights than the law accords relative to trade and ornamental fixtures. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1995, tenants have a statutory right to remove any fixture that they have annexed to occupied land. However they are required to compensate landowners for any damages incurred in the removal of those fixtures. These fixtures therefore belong to the tenant and do not run with the land.18 In many cases, much of the problems associated with categorizing fixtures and fittings are resolved by statute. For instance, Section 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925 defines land so as to include: Land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings, or parts of buildings, (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, advowson, and a rent and other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over or derived from land…19 Even so, quite a lot is left open to interpretation with the result that what may have been clear in 1925 relative to what amounts to a permanent fixture may not be so clear today. The courts have tried to ensure that changing times and conditions do not alter the intrinsic value of property nor undermine the value of improvements made to land. In the final analysis, what constituted a part of a building in the past, may not be looked upon as part of a building or surface of the land today. The fact is, there are buildings that can be removed today that could not have been removed in the past without trouble. Conclusion The law relative to fittings and fixtures has evolved to reflect the realities of modern living. Even so, the substantive law remains the same. Any item that is on its facts properly considered to be a permanent part of the land will be considered a fixture. Any item that is, on its facts capable of being removed without destruction and without impairing the value of the property to which it is attached will be deemed a fitting. The idea is to ensure that all the facts and circumstances of the annexation are taken into account so that justice is achieved for all parties and for the land involved. In the final analysis, the major difference between fittings and fixtures is the value that it confers upon the property and whether or not it is fair for that value to follow the land or the party affixing it. Ultimately, this will determine whether an annexed object is a fixture or a fitting. Bibliography Textbooks Dixon, M. Land Law. (Psychology Press 2002). Mattei, U. Basic Principles of Property Law. (Greenwood Publishing Group 2000). Articles/Journals Garratt, M.‘Land Law: Fixtures and Fittings – A Question of Gravity.’ (1999) A Paper Presented to the RICS ROOTS ’99 Conference, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 1-7. Luther, P.‘Fixtures and Chattels: A Question of More or Less…’ (2004) 24(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 597-618. Table of Statutes Agricultural Holdings Act 1995. Law of Property Act 1925 Table of Cases Berkley v Poulett [1976] 120 Sol. Jnl. 836. Botham v TSB Plc [1997] 73 P & CR D1. Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club v Pope [2001] 2 All ER 409. D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 382. Elitestone v Morris [1997] 2 All ER 513. Holland v Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 328. Mancetter Developments Ltd. v. Garmanson Ltd. [1986] QB 1212. Martin v Roe [1857] 7 E and B 237. Read More