Fixture Review

The Law of Real Property

Fixtures

What tests would you employ to determine whether a chattel has become a fixture? What problems in the West Indies specifically concern the question of chattel houses in this context?

The law of fixtures is founded on the maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit’, i.e. whatever is attached to the land becomes a part thereof. Thus, chattels that are so affixed to the land as to become apart of it, loses its character as chattel and passes with the ownership of the land. Thus, it could be gleaned that chattels are of a temporary nature, while fixtures remain permanent. The maxim was invoked to prevent the economic waste involved in giving the land to the heir and the severed chattel to the personal representative, i.e. to avoid destruction involved in the severance from the freehold. The principle of this doctrine has been unduly stretched to govern matters between landlord and tenant and mortgagor and mortgagee, who stand to lose their investment by the application of the maxim. In realization of the hardship caused by its strict application, the law made exceptions to the rule to allow a tenant to remove fixtures used for agricultural, domestic/ornamental and trade purposes.

The question whether a chattel has been affixed to the land can become exceedingly difficult to answer, thus it is a question of law for the judge to decide. However, a decision in one case is no sure guidance through another. The decision turns upon the particular circumstances of each case, and mainly but not decisively, the degree of annexation and object of annexation. According to Cheshire and Burn, under degree of annexation the general rule is that a chattel is not deemed to be a fixture unless it is actually fastened or connected to the land or building. Mere juxtaposition or lying of an article, however heavy, does not prima facie make it a fixture. Thus, under object of annexation, the test here is to ascertain whether the chattel...