Question 1
In examining whether something is a fixture or personal, the court usually performs three tests. The tests involved are annexation, adaptation, and intention. An annexation test is employed in determining whether an object has been fixed for its function as a chattel or suitable use of the building or land. Here, the object has to be affixed to the real property to be considered a fixture. An adaptation test is used to examine whether a particular object is adapted to either enjoyment or use of the real property. The third test is the intention test. This particular test is used to determine the primary motive behind annexing an object (Fitza & Tihanyi 2017). The court has to ascertain whether the motive was out of need or it was annexed for the sole intention of making an object permanently part of the land or building.
From the case provided, the installed cabinets, shelves, and counter for display pass the annexation test since they were fixed using screws. Also, they were installed for suitable use of the building. Conclusively, using the annexation test only, the objects qualify to be personal property since they were affixed to the real property for efficiency when using the property. Regarding the adaptation test, the items qualify as personal property since they were affixed to be used by the real property and have adapted to both enjoyment and typical use. Since the cabinets, shelves, and the counter were put for the proper functioning of the building, then they can be considered personal property. When examining the intention test, it is apparent that the primary motive of installing the stated items was to make the building convenient for the business. Therefore, the items under discussion qualify under the three tests and thus can be considered personal property since they were installed to make the business more effective to operate. Also, they can be removed without resulting in any serious damage to the owner’s property, and thus they can be removed before the tenant hands over the possession. Therefore, the items belong to Hot Coffee in the case whereby the lease expires.
Question 2
From the Hot Coffee case, there are two feasible options that could be explored by the parties involved. The first case is using tenancy while the second option is using join tenancy technique. When opting for tenancy when common ownership is involved, none of the parties owns a specific portion of the property. However, each party is entitled to a certain percentage of ownership. On the other hand, joint tenancy is a technique whereby both parties have equal rights to the purchased product. However, the parties when it comes to common ownership are not entitled to equal ownership of the property (Fitza & Tihanyi 2017). The sharing of the property is based on the right of survivorship. The right of survivorship is a term used to refer to a condition whereby one party becomes the owner of the property on the occasion whereby the other person dies (Fitza & Tihanyi 2017). A consequence associated with joint tenancy is that both parties lose the property at the end while a consequence associated with tenancy is that there can be conflicts when one party passes over the rights of ownership to their heir.
Reference
Fitza, M., & Tihanyi, L. (2017). How much does ownership form matter?. Strategic Management Journal, 38(13), 2726-2743.
0
1440