Brown v. DuBois
1988 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 7, 532 N.E.2d 223, 40 Ohio Misc. 2d 18 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intent of the party making an annexation is the paramount criterion for determining if a chattel becomes a permanent fixture, even when a lease allows for the removal of 'trade fixtures'; this intent is inferred from the nature of the article, its relation to the realty, and the purpose of annexation.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs-landlords leased premises to defendants-tenants, who operated a retail business.
- Defendants installed wall-to-wall carpet and track lighting appliances, using the track lighting to highlight items on display for sale.
- The written lease, executed around October 16, 1981, for a five-year term, specified that lessees had the right to remove 'trade fixtures.'
- Defendants vacated the property on or before October 31, 1986, when their lease terminated.
- Prior to vacating, defendants removed the installed wall-to-wall carpet and track lighting.
- The carpeting was securely attached to the realty by means of 'tack-less strips' which were nailed to the floor.
- The floors of the building were in a condition suggesting renovation or covering was necessary, and plaintiffs had agreed in the lease to expend up to $1,000 for repairs.
- The removal of the carpet caused some damage to the floors of the building.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs-landlords filed a complaint in an Ohio trial court, alleging that defendants-tenants improperly removed certain property (fixtures) from the leasehold upon termination of their lease.
- Defendants-tenants responded, denying that their removal of the property was improper.
- The matter came before the Ohio trial court for trial on the complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is wall-to-wall carpeting, installed by a tenant using tack-less strips to enhance the appearance of a retail space, a removable trade fixture or a permanent fixture under Ohio law, given a lease provision allowing removal of 'trade fixtures'?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogers, J.
No, the wall-to-wall carpeting became a permanent fixture and was not subject to removal by the tenants, despite the lease's 'trade fixtures' clause, but the track lighting was a removable trade fixture. The court determined that the track lighting appliances were clearly 'trade fixtures' because they were uniquely adapted to the defendants' retail business and thus removable under the lease. However, the wall-to-wall carpeting presented a more complex issue. Applying the fixture standards established in `Teaff v. Hewitt` (1853) and refined in `Masheter v. Boehm` (1974), the court considered several factors, including actual annexation, appropriation to the realty's use, and the crucial intention of the annexing party. While the carpet was attached by tack-less strips (annexation) and enhanced the premises' appearance (appropriation), the court inferred the tenants' intention was to make a permanent improvement to the property rather than merely installing a temporary business accessory. This inference was supported by the poor condition of the original floors, the general expectation of renovation, and the landlords' agreement to contribute to repairs. Consequently, the court concluded that upon installation, the carpet became a fixture and could not be removed. The court awarded plaintiffs $925 in damages for the conversion of the carpet, based on a depreciated replacement value.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the fixture test in landlord-tenant disputes, particularly when a lease contains a 'trade fixtures' clause. It emphasizes that a tenant's subjective intent to make a permanent improvement to the realty, inferred from objective circumstances like the nature of the installation and the condition of the premises, can cause an item to lose its character as a removable trade fixture. The decision underscores the importance of clear, specific lease language regarding the removal of all installed items, especially those that could be construed as general property improvements rather than unique business accessories. This ruling provides a guide for future cases distinguishing between general improvements and business-specific installations.
