Strain v. Green
172 P.2d 216 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether an article is a fixture is based on the objective intention of the party who installed it, as inferred from the circumstances, rather than their secret, subjective intent. When an owner annexes an article to their property, there is a presumption that they intend to enrich the freehold.
Facts:
- Jacob Green agreed to sell his waterfront home to William Strain.
- After Strain paid the full purchase price and received the deed, Green and his wife moved out.
- Upon leaving, the Greens removed several items, including a high-quality crystal chandelier, matching light fixtures, and two large mirrors that were firmly attached to the walls.
- The Greens had personally installed these items and had moved them from previous homes.
- To attach two of the mirrors, plywood backings were nailed to the plastered walls, and the mirrors were screwed to the plywood; removing them left significant damage and the unsightly plywood backing.
- The Greens replaced the valuable crystal light fixtures with cheap plastic imitations before leaving.
- The sales agreement did not contain any reservations or stipulations allowing the Greens to remove these specific items.
Procedural Posture:
- William Strain and his wife (plaintiffs) sued Jacob Green and his wife (defendants) in the trial court, seeking the return of items removed from the home or monetary damages.
- The trial court held that the hot water tank and Venetian blinds were fixtures that had to be returned, but that the lighting fixtures and mirrors were personal property that the Greens were entitled to remove.
- The Strains (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision regarding the light fixtures and mirrors to the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 the secret, uncommunicated intention of a seller to remove items they installed in a home prevent those items from being legally classified as fixtures that pass with the sale of the real property?
Opinions:
Majority - Robinson, J.
No, a seller's secret intention does not prevent an item from being classified as a fixture that passes with the property. The proper test for determining whether an item is a fixture relies on objective intent inferred from the circumstances. The court applied the three-part test for fixtures: (1) actual annexation to the realty, (2) application to the use or purpose of that part of the realty, and (3) the intention of the party making the annexation to make it a permanent part of the freehold. Crucially, this intention is not the annexor's secret mental state but is inferred from the nature of the article, the relationship of the annexor to the property (e.g., owner vs. tenant), the manner of attachment, and the purpose of the annexation. Since the Greens were owners, there is a presumption they intended to benefit the property. The light fixtures were physically attached and necessary for the house to be complete, and the two mirrors were so integrated into the walls that they became part of the realty. The powder room mirror, which was not physically annexed, remained personal property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the objective theory of intent in fixture law, providing stability and predictability in real estate transactions. It explicitly moves away from older cases that were more lenient towards sellers, reflecting a modern understanding of which items are integral to a home. By establishing that a buyer can rely on the outward appearance of the property, the ruling prevents sellers from using claims of secret intent to remove valuable items that a reasonable buyer would assume are included in the sale. This precedent protects buyers and clarifies that unless an item is explicitly excluded in the sales contract, the objective fixture test will control.
