Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Seven Palms Motor Inn, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 59021,59021
• Citation: 530 S.W.2d 695
• Parties: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SEVEN PALMS MOTOR INN, INC., Defendant, Commerce Mortgage Company et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 695

530 S.W.2d 695

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SEVEN PALMS MOTOR INN, INC., Defendant Commerce Mortgage Company et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 59021.

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Dec. 18, 1975.

Gerald Ortbals, Clayton, for defendants-appellants.

Theodore C. Salveter IV and William E. Stone, Springfield, for plaintiff-respondent.

HENLEY, Judge.

This case is here on transfer from the court of appeals, Springfield district, after opinion.

It involves a claim by Sears, Roebuck and Company (respondent) to recover $8,357.49 with interest, and to establish a mechanic's for materials and labor including, among other items, drapes and bedspreads furnished Seven Palms Motor Inn (defendant) in connection with the construction of a motel on land then owned by it. The case was submitted on a stipulation in which it was agreed, in substance, that respondent furnished to defendant all the items listed in the lien statement, that defendant is therefore indebted to respondent in the amount above stated, and that the only issue to be decided is whether respondent is entitled to a mechanic's lien. The trial court decided this issue for respondent and entered judgment accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed the money judgment but reversed that portion of the judgment imposing the lien, holding that the bedspreads were not lienable items and their inclusion in the statement vitiated the entire lien. While we determine the case the same as on original appeal, Mo.Const. Art. V, § 10, we ordered the transfer primarily to review the questions presented by the holding that the whole lien was vitiated. We decide that it was not.

Other pertinent facts included in the stipulation are:

1. That in addition to drapes and bedspreads, respondent furnished and installed other articles, described in the lien statement by item and the price of each, being: 106 one-way traverse rods; one center draw basic traverse rod; 29 heavy-duty steel curtain rods; and four pair of swinging louvered doors.

2. The only items described in the lien statement which appellants, Commerce Mortgage Company (present owner of the property) and others, claim are not lienable are the drapes and bedspreads.

3. The bedspreads and drapes throughout the motel are matching in color and design and were specially ordered and custom-made for the motel.

4. That the bedspreads are not physically attached to the motel premises in any way but are made to fit over beds in the usual manner; that the drapes are attached to rods which are affixed to the building.

Parts of the opinion of the court of appeals are utilized.

Section 429.010, RSMo 1969 provides in part: 'Every mechanic or other person, who shall do or perform any work or labor upon, or furnish any material (or), fixtures . . . for any building . . . under or by virtue of any contract with the owner . . . upon complying with the provisions of sections 429.010 to 429.340, shall have for his work or labor done, or materials (or), fixtures . . . furnished, a lien upon such building . . and upon the land . . ..'

Characterization of an item as a fixture, something otherwise personal but attached to realty under such circumstances as to become part of it, depends upon the finding of three elements: annexation to the realty, adaption to the use to which the realty is devoted, and intent of the annexor that the object become a permanent accession to the freehold. Missouri cases are uniform in requiring each of these elements to be present in some degree, however slight, before an item may be considered a fixture. Blackwell Printing Co. v. Blackwell-Wielandy Co., 440 S.W.2d 433, 438(5) (Mo.1969); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wally Hutter Oil Co., 467 S.W.2d 279, 281(1) (Mo.App.1971).

Appellants contend that neither the drapes nor the bedspreads are fixtures within the meaning of § 429.010 and therefore not lienable, because they are not annexed or attached to the building.

In Crane Co. v. Epworth Hotel Construction and Real Estate Co., 121 Mo.App. 209, 98 S.W. 795 (1906) the plaintiff sought a mechanic's lien for fire hose (and hose racks) sold to defendant and attached to standpipes installed to convey water for fire protection purposes and run up through the floors of the Epworth Hotel, the hose being attached by screwing it to a valve projecting from the pipe. The court noted that the hose could be either attached or detached by a man with his bare hand, and this could be done without marring the pipe. Stating that it was intended that this attachment be permanent, the court held that the hose was a fixture and lienable. In reaching that conclusion the court said (98 S.W. at 797): 'Of (the elements of annexation, adaptation, and intent) in modern times the latter two are more important than the one relating to the method by which the chattel is attached to the freehold. Such annexation, though slight and easily displaced, will not prevent an article becoming a fixture which is adapted to the proper use of a building, and which was placed therein by the owner with the intent of forming a part of the special object and desigh for which the building was constructed.' Cf. Woodling v. Westport Hotel Operating Co., 227 Mo.App. 1231, 63 S.W.2d 207, 210(8, 9) (1933).

The purpose of attaching the traverse rods to the realty was to hang drapes therefrom which could be opened or drawn across a window by the motel's guest to control the light in his room or secure his privacy. Of itself, the traverse rod attached to the wall above the window in the room did not accomplish this purpose. To serve this purpose it was essential that the drapes be provided and attached to the rod. They were provided and attached, and became an integral part of the instrument designed for use in connection with the window in the guest's room. As such, the drapes were as much a fixture as the traverse rod itself. It is obvious that the rod and drapes, as a unit, were adapted to the proper use of rooms in a motel and were placed therein with the intent they would form a part of the special purpose for which the building was designed to be used.

Not so the bedspreads. Respondent admits that those items are not physically attached to the realty in any way but insists that they have been 'constructively annexed.' In support of this proposition, respondent argues: the rods are physically fastened to the building; the drapes are affixed to the rods by hooks; the bedspreads match the drapes; a fortiori, the bedspreads 'are at least 'constructively annexed' to the rooms . . . by their relationship with the drapes.'

The doctrine of constructive annexation recognizes that a particular article, not physically attached to the land, 'may be so adapted to the use to which the land is put that it may be considered an integral part of the land' and 'constructively annexed' thereto. 36A C.J.S. Fixtures § 6, pp. 613--614. Since its development, the doctrine has ordinarily been applied to only three types of objects: (a) machinery placed in an industrial establishment for permanent use and necessary to the operation of the plant (sometimes referred to as 'the integrated industrial plant rule'); (b) items that are essential to the use of what is clearly a fixture and cannot readily be used independently elsewhere; and, (c) items normally physically attached to the realty that are severed for a temporary purpose such as cleaning or repair. 36A C.J.S. Fixtures § 6; 35 Am.Jur.2d Fixtures §§ 11, 13, 75--77.

The 'integrated industrial plant rule' is usually applied only to industrial plants using a substantial amount of machinery and tools, some of which are essential to the plant's operation even...