Mortg. Bond Co. v. Stephens - 1937 OK 612, 181 Okla. 419, 74 P.2d 361

Rule:

The criterion adopted by many courts, and by this court, for determining whether property ordinarily regarded as personal property becomes a part of the realty, is the united application of the following requisites: First, by determining whether the chattel has been actually annexed to the realty or something appurtenant to the realty; second, whether the chattel is applicable to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty with which it is connected is appropriated; third, the intention of the party making the annexation to make the chattel a permanent accession to the freehold. In the more recent cases the intention with which a chattel is attached to the realty has become more and more the decisive test whether or not the chattel has become a part of the realty. Such intention may be inferred from the circumstances.

Facts:

Defendant Mortgage Bond Company, built and furnished the building and mortgaged it to the plaintiff by real estate mortgage. The apartments contained folding beds, known as murphy beds, and kitchen units comprised of a gas cooking range and a kitchen cabinet containing and electric refrigerator. The refrigeration units were part of a central operated plant and were connected to motors in the basement building by way of wall pipes. The beds swung on pivots that were part of a bracket screwed into the wall of a large closet into which they folded. The mortgage was foreclosed and the builder and manager threatened to remove the kitchen and bed units from the premises. Thereupon, the plaintiff commenced the present action against said defendants, W. L. Reed, the Company’s president, and the Mortgage Bond Company, for injunctive relief from their threatened removal of said equipment, which consisted of certain folding beds and some kitchen furnishings. Plaintiff alleged that the articles were all installed in and attached to said building as a part of the premises. The trial court granted a permanent injunction. Defendants appealed. 

Issue:

Were the furnishings part of the realty which could not be removed by the defendants?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed finding that the different means mentioned in Okla. Stat. 11724 (1931) by which personalty may become affixed to realty were not exclusive, but were merely examples of permanent attachment. The court noted that the items were built for and peculiarly adapted to the use or purpose for which the building was erected, thus, the effective intention in installing them was that they were to become an integral part of the building.