Rules on clearing a reposessed house

[Slippery]

Hi All,
A friend has unfortunately had his house reposessed. He has 2 weeks to clear his stuff out. He has said I can buy the complete kitchen including appliances as he doesn't want the gear auctioned off. This is pretty much all that is left in the house now. Can he do this?

[Mrs_Pegasus]

http://homebuying.about.com/od/4closureshortsa les/qt/110507_Fixtures.htm

[buildersmate]

That is a US site but I reckon the rules are the same over here - the kitchen is fixed to the house so it forms part of the house. By the same token, one can't go taking the guttering away, the windows - whatever next.
It would not be wise for your get involved in this pointless exercise.

[Oneeyedvic]

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/coursework/proper ty-fixtures-fittings.php


B. Fixtures and Fittings

1. Applicable Law

Fixtures and fittings that accede to the land will become part of the land with the result that they are owned by the proprietor and subsequent buyer of the land. Chattels, on the other hand, remain as moveable property that do not accede and so will not form part of the integral heritable property. This therefore means that in absence of any express agreement in the contract of sale, the chattels may be removed from the land without any right of recourse by the purchaser.

Fixtures are determined by two separate tests. The first is that an item is a fixture if it is physically attached to the land. This includes shelving, heating and plumbing but not items that are merely resting on the land, such as a greenhouse, as found in the case of H.E. Dibble Ltd v Moore. The second test is to establish the purpose of the attachment as either for exclusive enjoyment of the chattel or for a purpose that involves improvement of the land. The case of D'Eyncourt v Gregory found that ornaments and strategically placed seating, as well as two statutes of lions in a hall, although not physically attached, did form part of the landscaping for the purpose of improvement of the property. This can be distinguished from the statute of a Greek god in the case of Berkley v Poullet which was held not to be essential to the landscaped garden. There are therefore three categories, namely, chattels, fixtures and objects that are part of the land.

[Oneeyedvic]

cont


2. Application of the law to the current facts

Matteo has removed the kitchen cupboards and appliances, fitted carpets, plants, shrubs, statutes and a greenhouse. With regard to the indoor items, according to the case of TSB v Botham bathroom fittings and white goods were seen as fixtures as they were accessories that enabled the room to be enjoyed as a bathroom. The same can be said for kitchen cupboards and appliances that have the purpose of making it possible for the space to be used as a kitchen and therefore the items inside the house are fixtures. The carpets are also fixtures as they improve the comfort and insulation of the building and are physically attached and made to measure in the same way that a kitchen can be custom fitted.

With regard to the outdoor items, if they form part of a landscaped design of a garden that has the ability to improve the land, as in the D'Eyncourt case, they will be fixtures. However, should these items be unrelated to improvement but bear no other purpose than the sake of their presence, they will be separate chattels. It is difficult to distinguish the rules in the various cases but advice to Henry would be that in order for the outdoor items to be fixtures, they have to had all formed part of an integral garden landscape.

My personal view would be that items like the fridge, washing machine & possibly free standing cooker could be taken but kitchen units (unless a completely free standing kitchen) would not be sensible to take.

[Slippery]

Thanks for the answers. Think I may give it a wide berth and check the Magnet sales!