Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: real property

Read your lease to determine the answer; it should be covered there if the lease was decently drafted. Regardless, if you're the tenant and want to take it, and the landlord says no, negotiate the issue with the landlord. Hire an attorney if you need to, and the machine is valuable enough to justify doing so. Feel free to contact me if serious about doing this.

Re: real property

Assuming you are speaking of leased premises; fixtures which are permanently attached to the real property generally are the property of the lessor at lease termination. Notwithstanding, there may be specific provisions in the lease that address the equipment in question. The lease should dictate how fixtures are handled at termination.

NOTICE: No attorney-client or confidential relationship is created through this communication. The information provided is of a general nature only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion and requires that the poster obtain legal advice from an attorney to protect his or her rights.

Re: real property

I suppose this is a question regarding a dispute between a building owner and a tenant as to whether the machine is a trade fixture, and hence can be removed and taken awat by the tenant at or before the end of the lease, or whether it becomes a part of the building because it was attached thereto.

The factors you mention - bolting to the floor and hard-wiring - point to the machine becoming party of the building. HOWEVER, I hasten to add that the determination depends upon much more, and physical attachment is just one of several factors that would underly the proper classification of the machine. Other factors would include:

(1) The intent of the parties at the time of making the lease or installing the machine;

(2) The usual custom or practice in the tenant's trade or occupation;

(3) The amount of damage that would occur in the removal of the machine; and

(4) The usefulness or necessity of the machine to another future tenant.

Common sense plays a part in the determination as well.

As examples, I recall that a steam boiler installed by a tenant for general heating and processing uses (it was a cannery or something like that) was held to be part of the building at the end of the lease, but beauty-parlor sinks, stands, mirrors and cabinets installed by the tenant could be removed, although the departing tenant had to pay for a little plaster repair and repainting.

The case books are full of examples, some going one way, some the other. I think a lot of weight is put upon the intention or understanding of the parties at the time of installation, even if tge deal wasn't in writing and required speculation by the judge as to what the parties probably had in mind.

In any case, bolting down and hard wiring is evidence of permanent fixtures rather than removable trade fixtures, but is by no means conclusive.