Everyone thinks they know what belongs to them but, is that really the case. How can one determine what piece of property belongs to you? Do you really understand what is yours from is not yours? It would be rather frustrating not to be sure whether a piece of land and or property is yours? Suppose one of your family members died, but they shared their house with someone else. Now you are not sure if the land is divided or strictly belongs to the co-owner based on their arrangements this would pose a great ordeal. To understand what piece of property belongs to you one must first understand what land and property is. Land can be defined as a segment earth's surface that is not covered by water and or country or state. Property can be described as a thing or things belonging to someone. Today I will discuss how the law determines whether an item of property is or is not part of the land by talking about the history of the English law of real property, defining fixtures and chattels, and using case law such as the Holland v. Hodgson 1872.
To understand what land law, consists of one must understand where the start of the English law came from. The start of the English law of real property came after the Norman Invasion of 1066 when common law was built throughout England. This was used to determine taxes and the feudal dues that were to be paid. This meant that all land was held by the Monarch (Hudson, 2011). Nowadays the modern law's sources consist of old courts of common law and equity such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the Land Registration Act 2002, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Before the Law of Property Act 1925, the purchase of land was stressful and very difficult for potential purchasers. The process was extremely lengthy and cumbersome. This required extensive investigation into the seller’s right and title to sell the land which had to be investigated and proved to the fullest degree. Thus making it expensive and time-consuming process, there was also no guarantee that the purchaser would acquire encumbered title to the land (Lawteacher.net, 2013). The primary object of the 1925 legislation was, to “facilitate and cheapen the transfer of land” (Lawteacher.net, 2013). Now that one understands where the piece of property and land started from it makes sense that property can be defined as a thing or things belonging to someone, as a matter of fact, fixtures and chattels have a considerable role to play in understanding what is attracted to the property and what is not.
Secondly, one of the critical elements to understanding what belongs to the property and what does not comes down to fixture and chattels just as I briefly stated above. Fixtures in effect can be defined or viewed as articles that have been connected to the land itself, forming part of the realty and property of the landowner which has now become a part of land items that have become permanently attached to the property. The general rule as to what is a fixture is expressed in the Latin phrase “quicquid plantatur solo, solo credit," his is whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of the soil (Lawteacher.net, 2013). A clear definition is made by Blackburn J. in Holland v. Hodgson(1872) "Thus blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry-stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder's yard and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels." On the flip side a chattel can be described as any property except freehold land with tangible moveable property, that can be removed without damage to any realty; usually movable moveable items of property that are neither land nor permanently attached to land or a building like animals, clothes, and appliances are all categorized as chattels. Unlike fixtures, chattels may be removed from the land without any right of recourse by the purchaser. Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (hereafter LPA) confirms this distinction in English law (Lawteacher.net, 2013).
The objective test for classifying a chattel was set in Berkley v Poulett (1976) It was decided that paintings attached to wall panel would be classified as chattels. To distinguish whether it is a chattel or fixture, consideration, whether the house is affixed to the land or not, must be taken into account. If the house is not affixed to the land but rather rests on its own weight, then is will be generally deemed to be a chattel unless it can be proven that it was intended to be part of the land. In addition, to defining fixtures and chattels determining what belongs to the property cases have a considerable role to play on the analyzation of how the law determines whether an item of property is or is not part of the land (Lawteacher.net, 2013).
Finally, one can come to a decision whether an item of property is or is not part of the land based off of a variety of different cases. I briefly touched upon Holland v. Hodgson case above, in this case, we can see the main issue was whether the looms were fixtures forming part of the land or whether they remained chattels. Due to this concerning issue, Blackburn J introduced the degree and object of annexation test. It states that “an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to shew that it was intended to all along continue a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel” (Blackburn J. in Holland v. Hodgson1872). Blackburn J. considers the intention of the object when defining a fixture. “If blocks were placed down with the intention of forming a wall, there would be classed as fixtures, but if the same blocks were placed down for convenience sake with the intention to be moved elsewhere, they would be considered chattels.”
Similar to in Holland v. Hodgson1872 case the Berkley v Poulett [1976] EWCA Civ 1 Court of Appeal also held that the items were chattels. In this particular case, Lord Poulett sold his estate to Effold Lt. The main issue was that then the estate was sold Lord Poulett had sold several items which Mr. Berkley claimed were fixtures and thus title had passed to him under the contract of sale. (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2013). In the case of Berkley v Poulett (1976), Scarman LJ commented “it remains significant to discover the extent of physical disturbance of the building or the land involved in the removal of the object. If an object cannot be removed without serious damage to or destruction of, some part of the realty, the case for its having become a fixture is a strong one.”
Now in the Buckland v Butterfield 129 ER 878 (1820) case the results differs from the pervious cases as the decision held was that it would be considered to be a fixture. Now let’s take a deeper look into the Buckland v Butterfield 129 ER 878 (1820) case. The question at large was whether a conservatory attached to a property could be considered a fixture. A tenant had made a conservatory on her house which was attached to the house and had windows opening into the conservatory. A Lease was assigned, and the issue arose as the conservatory might be considered as purely decorative, and it could be removed as a chattel. The evidence that was produced suggested otherwise stating that the house would suffer significant damage and part would become uninhabitable if the conservatory was removed (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2013). It was held that the removal of the conservatory would cause significant damage to the property, therefore would be considered a fixture and could not be removed (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2013). Due to these cases, one can see how the law can differentiate whether an item of property is or is not part of the land.
Now one can say with reassurance that you now have a clear picture of how the law determines whether an item of property is or is not part of the land based on the evidence shown above. Just as one said, I would do right from the start. Based on all the new-found information it is now safe to say that due to factors such as the history of English law of real property, defining fixtures and chattels, and using a variety of different case law one has clearly determined how the law determines whether an item of property is or is not part of the land.