![]() ![]() 2d 142 the court, clarified further to above in stating: “We may well have misled Judge Dimock by our statement that ‘asphalt cemented to the floor by the tenant belongs to the owner.’ This would be true if the asphalt became the only floor or integral with it, but we see no good reason for distinguishing a covering of asphalt tiles, removable without damage to the basic structure or a false ceiling similarly removable, from the partitions held to belong to the tenant in the Century Holding Case.” Clause Discussed Similarly, wiring and pipe are the kind of ‘realty’ which remains the property of the tenant ‘where those items have no connection with the operation of the building and serve to purpose but the proper functioning of the tenant’s fixtures, and are a part of the fixtures instead of the building.'” “Machinery which is sufficiently annexed to be fixture within the Whitlock Avenue case is ordinarily ‘realty’ which belongs to the tenant. But ‘sectional moveable and interchangeable partitions’ specially adapted to the building but removable without injury to it are realty belonging to the tenant.” Asphalt cemented to the floor by the tenant belongs to the owner. Examples give meaning to the distinction. “Some fixtures, even though annexed by the tenant are ‘distinctively realty’ and therefore become the property of the landlord others which are removable without material injury to the freehold remain the property of the tenant even though they are classified as realty because they are severely damaged or lose substantially all their value on severance. Certain Lands Located in the Borough of Manhattan 306 F. Courts have not treated the usual alterations and improvements clause as declaratory of an intent to make the installation the property of the landlord if the nature of its installation did not otherwise make it so. In conflicts between the landlord and tenant the question as to whether it is realty or personalty is resolved by the effect to be given to the agreement between the parties as to the intention to make the installation a permanent accession to the property Murdock v. Since the vendor-vendee test is applied between condemnor and condemnee, and the test is different between landlord and tenant it is usual to find that property installed by a tenant is deemed a compensable trade fixture as part of the real estate while at the very same time as between the landlord and tenant it is deemed the property of the tenant. While a particular installation might be treated as part of the real estate, as between a vendor and vendee of the real estate, that very same property might at the same time be considered personalty as between the landlord and the tenant. At the common law the same property may be treated differently as between different parties as to whether on installation it becomes realty or personalty. ![]() The question then, with respect to tenants installations, is where there is such a clause, in the event of a condemnation proceeding, are they fixtures for which a tenant may receive compensation or have they become the property of the landlord for which he receives the compensation? Court InterpretationĬourts generally, in interpreting this clause, have treated it as simply declaratory of the common law. In most form leases there is a provision similar to Clause 3 of the Real Estate Board form lease known as the “alterations and improvements’ clause.” Although they vary in detail, the essential part of the clause provides that “all alterations - installations and additions or improvements upon demised premises made by either party - shall become the property of landlord, and shall remain upon, and be surrendered with said premises, as a part thereof, at the end of the term or renewal term as the case may be.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |