Court Opinion

ID: 9535223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:46:59.591487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:11.819801
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion except part II B dealing with the forfeiture provision. As to that part I concur in the result reached only because throughout the litigation the parties have uniformly treated the buildings in question as real estate. Indeed, the agreement with the City of Gary whereby Jankovich derived its rights is not even in evidence.
Of course, it is well recognized that one party can place or erect a building upon the land of another, and if the parties agree, the building will not be deemed to become a part of the real estate. Thus, Jankovich’s ownership and ability to sell the hangars and other structures erected on the land owned by the city could, and presumably was, preserved.
On the other hand, it is my impression that when this occurs the buildings in question remain personal property. See, e. g., Brown v. Corbin (1889), 121 Ind. 455, 23 N.E. 276; Price v. Malott (1882), 85 Ind. 266. While these are aged authorities I believe they correctly state the law.
Under such circumstances I believe the better view would treat all the assets involved in the sale contract to U. S. Aircraft as personal property and ergo subject to the provisions and remedies provided by the Uniform Commercial Code.