Welu v. Twin Hearts Smiling Horses, Inc.
386 P.3d 937, 386 Mont. 98, 2016 MT 347 (2016)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Personal property becomes a fixture belonging to the landowner when it is annexed to the realty, adapted to the use of the realty, and objectively intended to be a permanent accession to the land.
Facts:
- Welu and Held, along with others, purchased a ranch and subsequently divided it into separate parcels, with Welu retaining hunting rights over the entire property including Held's parcel.
- To attract game animals for hunting, Welu wanted to irrigate alfalfa fields on Held's land and proposed installing a pivot irrigation system.
- The parties agreed via email that Welu would pay for the installation of the system, while Held would be responsible for ongoing maintenance and operation costs to ensure 'green fields.'
- Welu hired a contractor to install the system, which required filling in existing ditches and assembling pivot arms to specific lengths custom-fitted to the topography.
- The system was fully installed and winterized in place rather than being disassembled for storage.
- Following mechanical failures and a dispute over repairs, Welu instructed the contractor to stop work on the system.
- Welu eventually notified Held that he had sold the pivots and attempted to have them dismantled and removed from the property.
- Held refused to allow the removal, asserting that the system had become part of his real property.
Procedural Posture:
- Welu filed a complaint against Held and Twin Hearts Smiling Horses, Inc. in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Powder River County, alleging conversion and unjust enrichment.
- Held and Twin Hearts filed counterclaims alleging trespass and breach of contract.
- The District Court conducted a bench trial regarding the ownership of the irrigation system.
- Welu appealed the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Supreme Court of Montana.
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 a custom-installed pivot irrigation system constitute a fixture attached to the real property, thereby transferring ownership to the landowner, rather than remaining the personal property of the installer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cotter
Yes, the irrigation system constitutes a fixture because it meets the statutory and common law requirements for attachment to real property. The Court applied the three-part test for fixtures: annexation, adaptation, and intent. First, regarding annexation, unlike portable pipes in prior cases, this system was winterized in place, required earthwork (filling ditches), and was not designed to be moved between fields. Second, regarding adaptation, the system was custom-built for the specific topography of the ranch and was integral to the land's use for agriculture and hunting. Third, regarding intent, the objective circumstances—including the 30-year hunting right and the permanent installation method—demonstrated an intent for the system to remain permanently. Furthermore, the Court rejected Welu's unjust enrichment claim because a valid express contract (the email agreement) existed between the parties, and Held had not breached that contract at the time Welu stopped the repairs.
Dissent - Justice McKinnon
No, the aboveground portions of the system should remain personal property, and the landowner is being unjustly enriched. The dissent argued that pivot irrigation systems are inherently mobile and that the specific system was partially disassembled, showing a lack of permanent physical attachment. Justice McKinnon contended that Welu's intent was only to keep the system there while he had hunting rights, not permanently. Additionally, the dissent argued that because the contract was silent on ownership, the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment should apply to prevent Held from receiving a million-dollar windfall for a system he did not pay for.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of 'objective intent' over 'subjective intent' in property law disputes regarding fixtures. Even if an installer secretly intends to remove an item later, if the physical mode of installation and the adaptation to the land suggest permanence to a reasonable observer, the item will be legally classified as a fixture. The case also clarifies the 'annexation' factor for agricultural equipment, distinguishing between generic, portable equipment (like gated pipes) and custom-fitted infrastructure (like pivot systems requiring earthwork). Finally, it highlights the danger of informal email contracts for high-value improvements, as the existence of a bare-bones contract barred equitable relief.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Welu v. Twin Hearts Smiling Horses, Inc. (2016)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"