Court Opinion

ID: 9660250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:08:48.122666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:17.011241
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Chief Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. If this case had been submitted to the chancery court for a fact-finding decision on a record stipulating exactly what was disclosed in connection with the motion for summary judgment or on exactly the same evidence submitted at trial, I would be unable to say that the finding of the chancellor was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. I strongly feel, however, that the court has declared that the signs in question were fixtures as a matter of law. The agreement of the purchaser that they were not to be considered as fixtures was, standing alone, enough to create an issue of fact. It is clear that the party who installed the signs had no intention that they become permanent accessions to the freehold. The appropriate test in this state was set out in Choate v. Kimball, 56 Ark. 55, 19 S.W. 108. We said: *** The rule for the determination of the question varies according to the relation of the parties between whom it arises, and it is less liberal in permitting a removal, as between mortgagor and mortgagee, than as between landlord and tenant. The term “fixtures” has reference to articles which in and of themselves, and irrespective of annexation to land, are of a chattel nature, but by reason of such annexation have become a part of the land. The point of difficulty arises in determining when there has been such annexation of chattels as to make them a part of the land or irremovable fixtures. It is said that the true criterion, established by the authorities, consists in a united application of several tests, as follows: “(1) Real or constructive annexation of the article in question to the realty. (2) Appropriation of adaptation to the use or purpose of that part of the realty with which it is connected. (3) The intention of the party making the annexation to make the article as permanent accession to the freehold; this intention being inferred from the nature of the article affixed, the relation and situation of the parties making the annexation, and the policy of the law in relation thereto, the structure and mode of the annexation, and the purpose and use for which the annexation has been made.” Mr. Ewell says that, “of these three tests, the clear tendency of modern authority seems to be to give preeminence to the question of intention to make the articles a permanent accession to the freehold, and the others seem to derive their chief value as evidence of such intention.” A summary judgment is improper if any genuine fact issue exists. Hughes Western World, Inc. v. Westmoor Manufacturing Co., 269 Ark. 300, 601 S.W. 2d 826; Wells v. Heath, 269 Ark. 473, 602 S.W. 2d 665; MBPXL Corp. v. First National Bank, 266 Ark. 195, 583 S.W. 2d 18; BWH Inc. v. Metrpolitan National Bank, 261 Ark. 182, 590 S.W. 2d 247. To make its determination the court must look at all the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits filed and admissions. Purser v. Corpus Christi State National Bank, 258 Ark. 54, 522 S.W. 2d 187. All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party. Russ v. Life Insurance Co., 264 Ark. 783, 574 S.W. 2d 253. I submit that when the Choate test is properly applied and all doubts and inferences are tested against appellees, the parties moving for summary judgment, it cannot be said that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Granting and affirming this summary judgment is an abortive application of the summary judgment rules and a troublesome precedent.