Bastas v. McCurdy
266 S.W. 2d 49, 1954 Mo. App. LEXIS 251 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An article of personal property is considered a fixture and part of the real estate if it meets a three-part test of annexation, adaption, and intent, with the annexor's intent to make it a permanent accession to the land being the paramount factor.
Facts:
- Henry S. and Ethel P. McCurdy owned a farm with a modern brick house.
- In 1947, the McCurdys purchased a 500-pound gas tank, placed it on two concrete blocks near the house, and connected it to the house's appliances via an underground pipe.
- The house was also equipped with a gas hot water heater, which was connected to the home's water and gas pipes but had no other attachment to the building.
- On April 14, 1951, the McCurdys entered into a contract to sell the part of the farm containing the house to Pete J. and Marie F. Bastas.
- The contract of sale specified that 'gas fixtures' were to be included in the sale.
- After the Bastases took possession of the property around July 28, 1951, they discovered the McCurdys had removed the gas tank and the hot water heater.
Procedural Posture:
- Pete J. and Marie F. Bastas (plaintiffs) sued Henry S. and Ethel P. McCurdy (defendants) in a Missouri trial court for damages.
- The McCurdys filed a counterclaim against the Bastases.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Bastases on their claim for $650 and also found for the Bastases on the McCurdys' counterclaim.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- The McCurdys, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an article of personal property become a fixture and thus part of the real estate solely based on its annexation and adaption to the property, without a required finding as to the annexor's intent to make it a permanent accession to the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Holman, Special Judge
No. An article does not become a fixture without a finding of the annexor's intent to make it a permanent accession to the land. The determination of whether an article is a fixture depends on three elements: (1) annexation to the realty, (2) adaption to the use of the realty, and (3) the intent of the annexor to make it a permanent part of the realty. Intent is the most important of these elements. The trial court's instruction to the jury was fatally defective because it directed a verdict for the plaintiffs based only on findings of annexation and adaption, omitting the essential element of the defendants' intent at the time the items were installed. An error in omitting a necessary element from a plaintiff's verdict-directing instruction cannot be cured by other instructions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the 'intent' element within the three-part test for fixtures, establishing it as the most critical factor in disputes between a seller and purchaser. By ruling that a jury instruction omitting intent is fatally defective and constitutes reversible error, the court sets a strict standard for trial procedure in fixture cases. This precedent emphasizes that all essential elements of a cause of action must be included in a verdict-directing instruction, ensuring that the jury properly considers the annexor's state of mind, which is often the determinative issue.
