Sharp v. Sharp

Decision Date24 February 1989
Citation540 So.2d 1373
PartiesJanell SHARP v. Ethel Pearl SHARP. 87-882.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

William R. Justice of Conwill & Justice, Columbiana, for appellant.

Wanda D. Devereaux of Devereaux & Hiebel, Montgomery, for appellee.

ADAMS, Justice.

The plaintiff, Janell Sharp, appeals from a declaratory judgment for the defendant, Ethel Sharp. The circuit court held that Ethel's mobile home was not a "fixture" and, therefore, that Janell, who owned the real property upon which it sat, had no interest in the mobile home. We affirm.

The facts are these:

Marvin Sharp transferred the title to certain real property to his wife, Janell. Janell granted Marvin's father and stepmother, Fred and Ethel, a life estate in the real property. In 1986, Fred and Ethel purchased a mobile home for $16,740.00. They had it installed on the property subject to the life estate. Marvin and his employees and contractors performed most of the installation. 1

A year later, Ethel wanted to remove the mobile home from the land and sell it. Janell objected, maintaining that the mobile home had become a fixture and was, therefore, an inseverable part of the real property. Janell sued Ethel, seeking a declaratory judgment concerning any rights and interests that she might have in the mobile home. Ethel counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint alleging fraud, negligence, and conversion against Marvin and his construction company, M & D Construction, Inc.

After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court determined that the mobile home was not a part of the real property and, therefore, that Ethel could remove it. The court also dismissed Ethel's counterclaim and the third-party complaint. Janell appeals.

Our attention goes to whether the trial court erred in holding that the mobile home was not a fixture.

We first note that absent a showing that the trial court's findings were palpably wrong, or manifestly unjust, its decision will go undisturbed on appeal. Clardy v. Capital City Asphalt Co., 477 So.2d 350 (Ala.1985). A fixture is "an article which was once a chattel, but which, by being physically annexed or affixed to the realty, has become accessory to it and part and parcel of it." Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Sawyer, 26 Ala.App. 520, 522, 163 So. 657, 658 (1935). A determination of whether an article is a chattel or a fixture is a mixed question of law and of fact. Milford v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 355 So.2d 687 (Ala.1978). The parties direct our attention to Milford, where this Court listed the prevailing criteria for determining whether an item has become a fixture. Those criteria are:

" '(1) Actual annexation to the realty or to something appurtenant thereto; (2) Appropriateness to the use or purpose of that part of the realty with which it is connected; (3) The intention of the party making the annexation of making permanent attachment to the freehold. This intention of the party making the annexation is inferred; (a) From the nature of the articles annexed; (b) The relation of the party making the annexation; (c) The structure and mode of annexation; (d) The purposes and uses for which the annexation has been made.' "

Milford, 355 So.2d at 690, quoting from Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 46, 11 So. 334, 335 (1891).

We agree with both parties' concession that our holding turns on whether the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Ethel did not intend to enhance the value of Janell's real property by annexing the mobile home to it. In answering this question, we recognize the presumption that items placed on land by a life tenant are intended to remain personal property. That presumption, however, is rebuttable. 36A C.J.S. Fixtures § 31 (1961). Janell devotes a substantial part of her argument to an attempt to rebut that presumption. She argues that the mobile home's structure and mode of attachment to its foundation evidence an intention to permanently attach...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Atchison
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 12 Septiembre 2016
    ...(“Under Alabama law, a mobile home which is not permanently affixed to the land is personal property.”); Sharp v. Sharp, 540 So.2d 1373, 1375 (Ala.1989) ; First Alabama Bank v. Renfro , 452 So. 2d 464, 467 (Ala.1984). Yet, Alabama law provides for an occasion when a manufactured home may be......
  • SYCAMORE Mgmt. GROUP LLC. v. COOSA CABLE Co. INC.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 22 Enero 2010
    ...(c) The structure and mode of annexation; (d) The purposes and uses for which the annexation has been made."'" Sharp v. Sharp, 540 So.2d 1373, 1375 (Ala. 1989) (quoting Milford v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 355 So.2d 687, 690 (Ala.1978), quoting in turn Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44,......
  • LaFarge Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Stribling
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 2003
    ...and uses for which the annexation has been made." Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 46, 11 So. 334, 335 (1891). See also Sharp v. Sharp, 540 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1989); Thornton Props. v. Alabama Power Co., 550 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Using this test, this Court determined in Milford, where ......
  • Green Tree - AL LLC v. Dominion Res. L.L.C.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 9 Septiembre 2011
    ...1, 2010, and requiring a certificate of title for any manufactured home beginning with model year 1990); see also Sharp v. Sharp, 540 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Ala. 1989) (determining, after applying common-law principles governing whether an item has become a fixture, that a manufactured home own......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT