Advise Ms Betty On Her Options From A Provided Case In A Letter (Essay Sample)

Name
Institution
Student Number
Executive Summary
We write to you to advise you of your rights about the shed that is in the land you are leasing. This is the same shed you live in, and it has been four home since the 1960s.An organization by the name Turnbull Development Pty Ltd has bought the land and wished to remove this shed. Their claim is that it detracts from the beauty of the area. However, your lease on the property has not lapsed, and you also consider the shed to be part of the area. Therefore, your shed should remain in the property. We have analyzed and examined the law that would be relevant to and applicable to your circumstances. Seeing that this case is a shed that should be determined to be either a fixture or a chattel, we conducted in-depth research on this topic in a bid to come up with information valuable enough to support your claim. We considered all your claims including the fact that your lease on the land runs for a duration of 60 years that not yet lapsed and also the fact that the shed rests on piers on the land. We have compared your case to a few other cases similar to yours that have been filed and ruled upon in the past. These cases had the same characteristics in that they were on structures that had been put up on piers that were fixed to the ground. As a result of this research, we advise you that you would be entitled to remain in your home.
Your advice to us
During our previous meeting, you advised us that you have been living in a shed that is on a land you are leasing. You have leased this land for a very long time, and the shed was in existence even before your lease. We saw this significant since the shed having existed for so long shows us that it was not meant to be a temporary structure. Another part of what you told us about this structure that we saw to reinforce the fact that this shed was, meant to last is that it is made of galvanized iron showing that extra effort was put in to ensure that it lasts.The shed was initially designed as a demountable but at present it would be close to impossible to move it without destroying it. You also advised us that on the lease you unknowingly listed the shed as a chattel. This is of great significant and is a point of argument since agreements like the one you made does not prevent a fixture from becoming a fixture.
Also, you advised us that Turnbull Developments Pty Ltd has recently purchased the land and want to develop a housing estate. Turnbull Developments Pty Limited wants to remove the shed by claims that it detracts from the beauty of the land. They have rights to the land since they have purchased it meaning that they can do whatever they please with whatever is in the land. However, you do not see it rightful that they remove your shed from the land due to the mere fact that they are the new owners.
Consequently, you stated that the shed should be considered as part of the land and by the fact that your lease on the land is still on and that that grants you the rights to retain the shed as it has become part of the land. The significance of this information is your shed can be considered a
fixture as it has become freehold of the land. You asked us to advise you as to whether the shed can be removed or be considered part of the land since you consider it to be a freehold of the land you are leasing.
Ownership of the shed
The law provides that a chattel can become a fixture by all or one of the following ways. First for a chattel to be considered a fixture, it has to be annexed to the land but even after this, the mode and extent of the annexation, and especially on whether the chattel can easily be removed without substantial injury to itself or the premises. Secondly the reason and purpose of the annexation, that is whether it was meant to be there permanently or it was for substantial improvement of the premises. It should also be looked into whether the chattel was merely for a temporary purpose or the more complete enjoyment and use of the shed as a chattel.
Despite the shed you live in not being fixed to the land, it stands on piers that are on the land and thus can be argued that it was always meant to be there as it was purposefully put together. As in the case of Elitestone limited vs. Morris, it was seen that the bungalow that rested on brick pillars that were fixed to the land was a fixture. First by the fact that the bungalow had been there for a very long time and chances were that it was erected as a permanent structure. This is also similar to the case of Reid vs. Smith. Here, a house is also resting on piers that were fixed to the land a vendor wanted to sell the land and sought to assert an entitlement to remove the house from the land. Lord Griffiths CJ held the position that the house had become part of the freehold and therefore a fixture.
In the case of Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7, CP 328 the owner had attached looms using nails to a stone floor of a mill he owned1. The argument was whether the rooms were a chattel or a fixture. The owner of the mill had failed to go through with his mortgage causing his mill to be repossessed. Though the rooms would be easily removed, they were ruled to be fixtures since however slightly attached the intention was to keep them as part of the land. Lord Blackburn J alluded to a stone wall that had been put up by purposefully arranging them on top of each other as compared to one that had been formed as a result of stones just being placed on a piece of land for mere convenience. The former is considered a fixture while the latter is considered a chattel that is meant to remain so. Therefore, a similarity exists between your case and this one hence a ruling like this can be made for your case if clearly argued.
Turnbull Developments Pty Limited having purchased the land have got ownership rights to the land and all the fixtures on it. It is then lawful for them to remove your shed if they wanted to do so. However, you have a lease contract on land that has not yet expired and does not expire for a considerable amount of time since your lease was for 60 years. This gives you the rights to the shed, and thus Turnbull has to respect your lease and not interfere or bring down the shed until such a time when your lease has expired.
The terms of the lease must also be considered in this case. You had also informed us that it was indicated in the lease that the shed was a chattel and that the owner could remove it at will or do whatever they pleased with it. This, in essence, gives the right to Turnbull to remove the shed you
live in seeing that they are the new owners of the land on which the shed stands. Also, you also stated that you listed the shed as a chattel unknowingly. Nevertheless, as far as the lease is concerned it can be argued that the agreement made by the fixer and any other person whether in written form or verbal regarding the purpose of the shed is immaterial and cannot prevent a chattel from becoming a fixture as in the case of Melluish v. B.M.I. (No. 3) Ltd. [1996] A.C. 454.
The law also provides that where an object cannot be moved without causing substantial damage or injury to it, it is considered a fixture. You had advised us that despite the shed having been erected as a demountable, it is rested on piers and is not likely that it be moved without it falling apart. The shed, therefore, was most probably meant to remain as part of the land and not be moved. This supports your claim that the shed is considered as part of the lands and not be removed by Turnbull limited as they intend to do. Moreover, this shed though not attached to the ground is your dwelling place and will most probably be considered a fixture.
Summary
<...