Court Opinion

ID: 9753391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:12:27.289126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:35.752582
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge KELLEY.
I respectfully dissent.
In determining whether the greenhouse became so affixed to the land that it became part of the real estate and was, therefore, subject to the realty tax under Section 201 of the Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law (Law)1, this Court has outlined the relevant considerations, in pertinent part, as follows:
*119A fixture is an article in the nature of personal property which has been so annexed to the realty that it is regarded as part and parcel of the land. Black’s Law Dictionary 575 (5th Ed.1979). The considerations to be made in determining whether or not a chattel becomes a fixture include (1) the manner in which it is physically attached or installed (2) the extent to which it is essential to the permanent use of the building or other improvement, and (3) the intention of the parties who attached or installed it.
In re Appeal of Sheetz, Inc., 657 A.2d 1011 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 542 Pa. 653, 666 A.2d 1060 (1995) (citations omitted and emphasis in original).
With respect to the third of these considerations, the Majority states the following, in pertinent part:
The third consideration in Sheetz is the intention of the parties who attached or installed the chattel. As with the canopies in Sheetz, there is nothing in the record in the present case suggesting that the greenhouse is an item that was intended to be removed as long as the property was being used as a nursery to grow and cultivate plants. The greenhouse creates the necessary environment for raising plants and will be affixed to the property until it is worn out, the nursery business fails or Custer and his wife no longer own the property. Under the Sheetz test then, the greenhouse is realty and taxable as real estate.
Majority Opinion at 117.
To the contrary, Mr. Custer testified that the instant greenhouse was for temporary use in the nursery business until he and his wife could construct a more permanent structure, and that he would take the greenhouse if he should move the business like any other piece of equipment. See N.T. 11/17/20052 at 12-13, 17-18, 18-19.3 *120Mr. Custer’s testimony in this regard is supported by the testimony of his wife. See Id. at 31.4
There is simply no objective evidence in the record suggesting that the greenhouse was intended to be permanently affixed to the property so as to become part of the realty. Thus, even if it is assumed that the greenhouse in this case was sufficiently physically attached to the land, requiring an examination of the Custers’ intent with respect to the greenhouse, the evidence in this case does not support the determination that the greenhouse was a permanently affixed to the realty. See, e.g., Clayton v. Lienhard, 312 Pa. 433, 437, 167 A. 321, 322 (1933) (“[Tjhird, those which, although physically connected with the real estate, are so affixed as to be removable without destroying or materially injuring the chattels themselves, or the property to which they are annexed; these become part of the realty or remain personalty, depending on the intention of the parties at the time of annexation; in this class fall such chattels as boilers and machinery affixed for the use of the owner or tenant but readily removable.”) (citations omitted and emphasis added).
Accordingly, unlike the Majority, I would reverse the trial court’s order in this case.

. Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.201. Specifically, Section 201 of the Law provides, in pertinent part:
The following subjects and property shall as hereinafter provided be valued and assess and subject to taxation ...,
(a) All real estate, to wit: Houses, house trailers and mobilehomes permanently attached to land or connected with water, gas, electric or sewage facilities, buildings, lands, lots of ground and ground rents, trailer parks and parking lots, mills and manufactories of all kinds, all office type construction of whatever kind, that portion of a steel, lead, aluminum or like melting and continuous casting structures which enclose, provide shelter or protection from the elements for the various machinery, tools, appliances, equipment, materials or products involved in the mill, mine, manu-factory or industrial process, and all other real estate not exempt by law from taxation. Machinery, tools, appliances and other equipment contained in any mill, mine, manufactory or industrial establishment shall not be considered or included as a part of the real estate in determining the value of such mill, mine, manufactory or industrial establishment....
72 P.S. § 5453.201(a) (emphasis added).

. "N.T. 11/17/05” refers to the transcript of the hearing conducted before the trial court on November 17, 2005.

. Specifically, Mr. Custer testified, in pertinent part, as follows:
Q. Okay. How long have you lived on the property, sir?
A. Three years since, in July it will be three years.
Q. Okay. If you were to move off the property would you take it with you?
A. Most definitely.
Q. Okay. Did you intend for the greenhouse to be permanent?
A. No. We kind of looked at this greenhouse as a starter greenhouse. And, you know, something that we could start to grow. It takes a long time to get any stock in this type of business when you’re growing it yourself. And we always thought eventually we would have, you know, something, something different. But it’s a — at the time it was the cheapest route for us to go. And that's why it was used and we went this way.
Q. You testified that you characterized this greenhouse as a "starter greenhouse”;—
A. Yes.
Q. —correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Can I infer from that that it’s your intention to use this particular greenhouse until it’s supersede by a better greenhouse?
A. Correct.
THE COURT: Mr., — I want to ask you, Mr. Custer, you indicated initially that if you moved you’d take the greenhouse with you.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And you indicated you would sell it; do you—
THE WITNESS: If I moved, I imagine that I would start, um, doing the same nursery business somewhere else.
THE COURT: Okay.
*120THE WITNESS: And I would take that as — well, as well as my other, you know, equipment that I need to do.

. Specifically, Mrs. Custer testified, in pertinent part, as follows:
Q. Okay. Is there a possibility you could move off the property?
A. It is possible.
Q. Okay. And if you did would you create another nursery business?
A. Probably.
Q. Okay.
A. We would probably do that, yes.
Q. Okay. If you’d remain on the property do you intend for the greenhouse to be there as-long as you are there?
A. Not that particular greenhouse—
Q. Okay.
A. —but the nursery business, yes.