Principles of Property Law - Report Example

Quicquid Plantatur solo, solo cedit Land does not refer to the ground and soil only, but it includes otherthings or objects attached to it such as rocks, building, trees, etc.1 There are various transactions involving land while the land is also put to different uses. Therefore, it is essential to for individuals to understand various components of land hence their possessions and the right they have to the property.2 This requires one to differentiate between chattels and fixtures. Chattels are things put on the land temporarily while fixtures are those things affixed to the land to form part of the land.3 This document examines the Maxim of Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit which establishes the law of the land with the view of determining the right of ownership and the purpose for which the occupier of the land can use that land. The maxim ‘Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit’ is a Latin Legal principle related to fixtures, and it implies that “whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil.”4 Fixtures refer to materials or things physically fastened to land so that they are considered part of the land and the landowner’s property.5 The principle is essential in order to protect the ownership of the property during the transfer of land ownership by inheritance, mortgaging, rent, sale, etc.6 It protects the property against unnecessary destruction in an attempt to separate that property from the land during the transfer of ownership.7 During the transfer of goods in land it is essential to recognize fixtures as part of the land since the title and value of land includes all things attached to the land. On the other hand, chattels are temporarily placed in the land and do not form part of the land.8 Therefore, when the right in the property exchanges hand the new owner is said to be the owner of the fixtures as well. The law establishes various tests to determine whether the good is to be treated as a fixture or a chattel. The conditions set to qualify the goods as fixture include examining whether the good is attached to the land or real property, whether the intention of the person fixing the good to the property intended it to remain fixed for a long time and whether the chattels was readjusted for the use of the real property.9 The ownership of the land is described as four-dimensional under the English law because it includes the area, things below and above the surface and extends over a given period of time. This implies that the property owner can make use of the property from the surface of the land, below and above the surface for a specified period of time depending on the agreement of ownership.10 However, the right to the use of the land depends on the relationship between the owner and the property and the degree to which the possessor of the land will impact the land. Whether goods are considered as fixtures or chattels depend on the specific case. The relationship between the parties will influence the decision as to whether the items are goods or fixtures.11 The law states the degree of annexation and the intention of the putting the item on the land as the prime issues to consider when examining the case. In the case of Holland v Hodgson12 the court considered the degree of fixation that was necessary to recognize things or materials as fixtures. In that particular case, the issue was for the court to determine whether the 400 looms meant for use in the mills could be recognized as fixtures.13 The presiding judge stated that objects or things loosely attached to the soil could not be recognized as fixtures. In order for items to be identified as fixtures there must be a union between the item and the land in which the item is placed. Loosely attached goods are considered to be resting on the land by their weight with nothing extra done to link the good with the land.14 However, the court established the purpose or intention of placing the object on the land as another factor to consider when determining whether the item is a goods or a fixture. For example, although a pile of stones could not be considered as part of the land, if the stones were arranged to form a dry stone wall then that wall formed part of the land.15 The stone is fixated by the period during which the owner intended to use those chattels. Therefore, by setting up stone wall the owner intended to use those stones for a longer period hence they should be treated as fixtures. In the case of otham16 the court of appeal clarified the issue by claiming that all things easy to detach from the land, do not form part of the land. Therefore, in the case where that mortgagee took away some things from the house before repossession by the mortgager for defaulting the payment was appropriate since those items were recognized as chattels and not fixtures.17 The implication of quicquid rule is that in case a person decides to attach objects or things on a land belonging to another person such as building a house on someone’s land, the law recognizes those things as part of the land that the landowner can take over their possession without any legal obligation to compensate the one who attached the objects on the land.18 Apart from defining what the land is the quicquid principle determines the claims of the tenants or vendors on the things they fixed on the land during their occupancy of the property. However, according to the court’s decision in the case of Holland v Hodgson, the tenant was denied the right of ownership of the 400 looms attached to the mills because such attachment transformed the objects into land hence they belonged to the property owner.19 The principle is also applicable in determining the ownership of the crop. In the case of Duppa20 annual crops, which rely on periodic labor for their production, are not part of the land. However, natural vegetation is part of the land. Also, the court has to consider the circumstance that led the person to attach chattels to the land. As decided in the case of Rodgers21 a heap of waste on which plants and grass have grown it forms part of the land hence belongs to the property owner. Therefore, the purpose, for which the items were established on the land, will influence the court’s decision regarding the rights to the land and the relationship between that person and the land. In order to differentiate between fixtures and chattels it is appropriate to establish when the object, which has been on the land, lost it features as a chattel and became a fixture. In the case of Mitchell22 Wooding C.J. established criteria for determining whether the chattel is attached to the land hence changed into a fixture. The motive of attaching the chattel to the land should be established. For example, if the object such as the house was not fixed to the land it will be treated as a chattel unless there is evidence to support otherwise.23 Therefore, the court will examine various factors in order to determine the intention of attaching chattels to the land. For example, the degree and purpose of annexation, the relationship between the person who attached the chattel and the land, the purpose of attaching it, the degree of damage it may cause to the land during removal.24 When the property changes ownership the former occupiers can remove all the chattels in the property during the change of ownership. The new owner has the right to the fixtures since they are part of the property.25 However, in case of rented land the tenant has right to chattels while the fixtures belong to the owner of the land. In addition, it will help in resolving conflicts between occupiers of the land and the owners.26 The tenant has to provide evidence to establish the goods were chattels while the landowner is responsible for ensuring that the goods are fixed or attached to the land hence regarded as fixtures.27 However, there is an exception to the rule of fixtures, for example, where a tenant can have the liberty to detach fixtures in case they were agricultural, ornamental or for trade purposes.28 Also, in case a poor tenant decides to construct a temporary structure on the rented land in order to house his family the court cannot consider his decision as intended to improve the land.29 It will be convenient to treat the case as though the person designed to use the house for its benefits as a chattel and not to improve the value of the land. In the case, the tenancy comes to an end the owner of the land, should compensate the tenant in order to keep the house or should allow the tenant to take away the structure.30 However, the landowner should get full compensation for all damages caused to his or her property during the establishment and demolition of the house. Therefore, the exceptions set by the law apply to trade fixtures, domestic and ornamental fixtures exempting from the maxim quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit.31 All items fixed for domestic beautification may be removed from the land at prior to the end of a lease period or unconditional contract of sale without notifying the landowner or prospective buyer.32 However, trees, crops, houses and other fixtures forming part of the land cannot be removed from the land without prior agreement with the prospective buyer or the landowner.33 In conclusion, maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit differentiates the goods from fixtures for the purpose of differentiating the right of claims on various items attached to the land. On the other hand, all fixtures belong to the landlord or the new buyer of the land. The tenants or sellers of the land have the right to take away all items that are not attached to the land by any means other than their own weight. However, all fixed items held by tenant for the purpose of trade, agriculture or for domestic use are treated as not intended to last long hence should be taken by the tenants at the moment of relinquishing the position of the land or terminating the occupancy of the land. However, the tenant has to compensate the owner of the land for any damage they may cause when detaching the fixtures from the land. Establishing the difference between fixtures and chattels is essential because it helps in settling conflicts between landowners and tenants and the rights of a property the individuals can enjoy. Bibliography Abbey Robert and Richards Mark, Property Law Handbook 2014-2015 (Oxford University Press 2014) 338 Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Bray Judith, A Students Guide to Equity and Trusts (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Brennan Posner, Sutherland Asbill and Brennan Fixated on Fixtures: An Overview of Perfecting And ensuring Priority of Security Interests in Fixtures (2012). Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/blt/2012/01/inside-buslaw-fixated-fixtures-201201.authcheckdam.pdf Butt, P. (2010). Land Law (6th Ed.).Pyrmont, NSW. Cooke Elizabeth, Land Law (Oxford University Press, 2012) 288 Dixon Martin, Modern Land Law (Routledge 2013) 520 Dixon Martin and Lees Emma, Q&A Land Law (Taylor & Francis, 2014) 229 Delta Alpha Publishing Fixtures. 2015. Retrieved from Duppa v, Mayo (1669) Edwards Simon., Stell Patrick and Firn Keith, Dilapidations and Service Charge Disputes, (Taylor & Francis, 2014) 241-273. Emanuel Steven, Real property (Aspen Publishers Online, N.d.) Gravells Nigel, Landmark Cases in Land Law (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013) 304 Gardner Simon and MacKenzie Emily, An Introduction to Land Law, (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012) 442 Hepburn Samantha, Australian Principles of Property Law (Routledge, 2013) 500 Hewitson Russell, Property Law Statutes 2012-2013 (Routledge, 2012) 608 Hepburn Samantha J., Principles of Property Law (Psychology Press, 2001) 452 Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 Mattei Ugo, Basic Principles of Property Law (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000) 211 Megarry Robert, Wade William, Harpum Charles, Bridge Stuart and Dixon Martin J. The Law of Real Property (London; Sweet & Maxwell, 2012) 1668 Mitchell v Cowie (1964) 7 WIR 118 Otham v TSB Bank (1996) 7 P & C R D 1 Rinyu Beth, The Exception to the Rule (B. Rinyu, 2013) 304 Rodgers v Longsdon (1967) Routledge, Land Lawcards 6/e: 6th Ed. (Routledge, 2009) 160 Tee Louise, Land Law (Routledge, 2013) 272 Yoram Chen Blond and Marafino John, Property (Aspen Publishers Online, 2009) 232 Ziff Bruce, Principles of Property Law (4th ed.) (Toronto: ThomsonCarswell, 2006). Read More