Source: https://thekuhnlawfirm.com/statute-determines-personal-property-fixture-realty/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:09:18+00:00

Document:
An experienced Minneapolis, Minnesota contract attorney knows that when presenting facts to a court about about a disputed issue, the judge or jury will weigh the credibility of the witnesses. In this case, two farmers argued about their agreement relating to a pivot irrigation system and whether it became a fixture on the property and whether one farmer was unjustly enriched, among other things.
Judicial District Court, Powder River County. We affirm.
agreement concerning the pivot irrigation system?
Horses, Inc., were not unjustly enriched?
purpose in acquiring an interest in the Ranch was to use the land to hunt game animals.
increase the amount of game attracted and retained on the property in those areas.
¶5 Subsequently, Welu proposed to irrigate the area using a pivot irrigation system.
1. I would pick up the primary costs associated with set up and installation.
and operational costs . . .
the amount of investment I am looking at. Agreed?
¶6 To fulfill his end of the agreement, Welu selected and hired Agri-Systems, Inc.
prevented the irrigation system from completing a full circle. Further, Agri advised Mr.
Held that failure to move the fence would result in the pivot being damaged.
the property, the workers left without reassembling the system.
operation of an “unlicensed” outfitting or hunting guide operation.
under any of his alleged claims.
2015 MT 302, ¶ 8, 381 Mont. 292, 358 P.3d 913 (citation omitted).
Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Company, 271 Mont. 459, 898 P.2d 680 (1995).
satisfy the legal standard provided by § 70-15-103, MCA, and our precedent in Schwend.
system constitutes a fixture is reviewed de novo.
provides, in relevant part, that “[a] thing is deemed to be affixed to land when it is . . .
adaptation, and intent test that is unique to the facts of each case. Schwend, ¶ 27.
Therefore, we address each factor in turn.
farmer or rancher using this system needs the gated pipe to irrigate.
Schwend, ¶ 25 (emphasis added) (quoting Wyo. State Farm Loan Bd. v. Farm Credit Sys.
Capital Corp., 759 P.2d 1230, 1231 (Wyo. 1988)).
irrigation ditches from the previous flood irrigation system on THSH’s property.
location on the THSH property.
meaning of our precedent involving fixtures.
irrigated the land at issue and because the system was capable of use on other property.
particular real property at issue.
able to remove, essentially, every aboveground piece of the pivot irrigation system.
person to have based on the facts and circumstances in the record.” Amoco Prod. Co. v.
Wyo. State Bd. Of Equalization, 15 P.3d 728, 733 (Wyo. 2001).
system to become a permanent fixture on the land.
and subsequently filed the instant lawsuit.
but no actual contract exists between the parties.
decline to do so in this case.
preclude an unjust enrichment claim. We disagree.
case. In Robertus, the plaintiffs had leased two tracts of land from the defendant.
and terminated both lease agreements.” Robertus, 205 Mont. at 406, 670 P.2d at 541.
The defendant proceeded to harvest and sell the wheat the plaintiffs had planted.
agreement, they were entitled to recover based on the theory of unjust enrichment.
or not.” Robertus, 205 Mont. at 407, 670 P.2d at 542.
party was suing the breaching party to recover a benefit retained by the breaching party.
present in the instant case.
and the difficulties of proof of loss.
the party justifiably refusing to perform citing Held’s apparent breach. Dissent, ¶¶ 54-55.
the rule stated in § 374.
e.g., Sebena v. State, 267 Mont. 359, 367, 883 P.2d 1263, 1268 (1994); Ragland v.
150 Mont. 150, 156, 432 P.2d 386, 391 (1967); Estate of Pruyn, ¶ 64; Hinebauch v.
118, ¶ 21, 310 Mont. 27, 48 P.3d 711; Lefeber v. Johnson, 2009 MT 188, ¶ 26, 351 Mont.
the basis of unjust enrichment.
enriched by the installation of the pivot irrigation system at issue in this case. Affirmed.
than pursuant to principles of contract law.
permanent and physical attachment to Held’s property.
physically attached to the land.
thus do not believe the system can be considered annexed under Schwend.
the underlying debt is not paid. Schwend, ¶ 33.
the aboveground portions of this pivot irrigation system do not constitute a fixture.
by operation of statute, rather than pursuant to principles of contract law.
court which have been affirmed through this Court’s fixture analysis.
Court found that because the irrigation system is determined to be a fixture, Held owns it.
whether to keep the fixture attached to the land or require that it be removed.
term—ownership of the system—which precluded Welu’s claim of unjust enrichment.
court acknowledged in its findings of fact, was never meant to primarily benefit him.
Welu. Held is therefore unjustly enriched and Welu should be afforded restitution.
hand, based on an improperly applied rule of Pruyn.
enrichment requires there must not be an adequate remedy at law available to the complainant.
between the parties that would preclude an unjust enrichment analysis under Pruyn, ¶ 63.
enrichment left unexamined by the Court.
when an existing agreement is indefinite.
by the breach and the difficulties of proof of loss.
what party breached a contract that was indefinite as to the term of ownership.
repair the system, ostensibly because Welu had instructed Agri to stop maintaining the system.
was indefinite because it lacked essential terms).
defendant or that the defendant somehow took advantage of the plaintiff.
Pruyn, ¶¶ 63-64 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
found under Pruyn where it can be shown the defendant took advantage of the plaintiff.
refusal to cede or pay Welu for those aboveground portions is a wrongful act.
this argument for Welu’s relief into a call for specific restitution, as the Court asserts.

References: v. 
 § 70
 v. 
 v.

 § 374
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.