Nadien v. Bazata

8 Citing cases

  1. Lemmons v. United States

    496 F.2d 864 (Fed. Cir. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    In Potomac Electric Power Co. v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 77, 85 F.2d 243, 248 (1936) cert. denied, 299 U.S. 565, 57 S.Ct. 27, 81 L.Ed. 416 (1936) three pieces of heavy machinery, one of which was a 35-ton generator set which rested on a concrete foundation specially built for it, were considered personalty since used in the business and not considered improvements to the real estate. Even ponderous and firmly attached items may retain their character as personalty if such is the intent of the parties, Nadien v. Bazata, 303 Mass. 496, 22 N.E.2d 1, 2 (1939). Accordingly, the size of tipple, which was used in a business and cannot under any view be considered an improvement to the real estate, does not affect its status as personalty under the facts of this case.

  2. In re United Chevrolet, Inc.

    21 B.R. 934 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)   Cited 2 times
    Finding hydraulic car lifts to be annexed to the realty and fixtures of the real property

    Finally, it is true that a small building may, in some circumstances, retain the character of a chattel if such was the intention of the parties. Nadien v. Bazata, 303 Mass. 496, 22 N.E.2d 1 (1939). Further, although buildings generally belong to the owner of the land, an express or implied agreement between the parties to the contrary can permit the Court to find that the building should remain personal property.

  3. Kaneb v. Kaneb

    334 Mass. 525 (Mass. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    J.H. Gerlach Co. Inc. v. Noyes, 241 Mass. 69, 73-74. Looney v. Trimount Theatres, Inc. 282 Mass. 275. Nadien v. Bazata, 303 Mass. 496, 499. Vincent v. Plecker, 319 Mass. 560, 561.

  4. Essex Bowling Co. Inc. v. Argyle Realty Corp.

    77 N.E.2d 643 (Mass. 1948)   Cited 2 times

    On the foregoing evidence it was for the jury to say whether the alleys were personal property. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Loan Co. Inc. 276 Mass. 335, 338. Nadien v. Bazata, 303 Mass. 496, 499, and cases cited. General Heat Appliance Co. v. Goodwin, 316 Mass. 3. The alleys were not made for the building, nor was the building erected exclusively to house them. They could be removed without injury to themselves or to the building, to which they were not annexed in any manner, but rested upon their own foundation.

  5. Mammoet Usa, Inc. v. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co.

    64 Mass. App. Ct. 37 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a mechanic's lien resulting from labor “in the erection, alteration, repair or removal of a building, structure or other improvement of real property” did not extend to transportation and handling of an already assembled object

    Mammoet's likening of the transformer to an immovable fixture is, of course, belied by its own actions in this case. Cf. Nadien v. Bazata, 303 Mass. 496, 499, (1939), noting that size alone does not make something a fixture (which is often defined as a "permanent improvement to real estate," Worcester Redev. Authy. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Hous. Community Dev., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 525, 529 [1999]), because, depending on the parties' intentions, "[a]rticles fully as ponderous, as firmly attached, and as difficult to remove [as the bowling alleys and ball racks involved in that case], and indeed complete buildings, may retain the character of pure chattels. . . ." Nadien, supra at 499.

  6. Cherry Bowl, Inc. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board

    100 Ill. App. 3d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    In Cherry Bowl, this court applied the industrial plant doctrine to determine that the taxpayers' property (bowling lanes and pinsetters in Cherry Bowl, and coal preparation plant machinery and equipment in Ayrshire) was properly taxed as real property. Cherry Bowl, 100 Ill. App.3d at 331; Ayrshire, 19 Ill. App.3d at 46.

    Other jurisdictions have applied the same factors in determining whether bowling alleys are fixtures in nontaxation contexts and have drawn varied conclusions. In each case, the court did not feel bound by the parties' characterization of the items as personal property ( Essex Bowling Co. v. Argyle Realty Corp. (1948), 322 Mass. 398, 77 N.E.2d 643; Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Franzke-Schiffman Realty Co. (1933), 211 Wis. 659, 248 N.W. 178; but see Nadien v. Bazata (1939), 303 Mass. 496, 22 N.E.2d 1 (landlord estopped from claiming lanes were fixtures where he encouraged tenant to buy the business in the belief that tenant would acquire title to lanes)), or by the fact that bowling equipment is regularly sold as used equipment in the industry. ( Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.) The Essex Bowling Co. court held the alleys were personal property, while the Brunswick court considered them to be fixtures.

  7. Auburndale Plaza v. Sarni Cleaners, No

    No. 966101 (Mass. Cmmw. Oct. 29, 1999)

    In order to make this determination here, the location, usage, and intention of the parties must be considered. See Bay State, supra (factual determination as to whether four air conditioners and a water tower were permanent fixtures); Nadien v. Bazat, 303 Mass. 496, 499 (1939] ("Articles fully as ponderous, as firmly attached, and as difficult to remove [as bowling alleys and racks]. and indeed complete buildings, may retain the character of pure chattels, if such is the intention"]; SGRO v. Getty Petroleum Corp., 854 F. Supp. 1164, 1180 (D.N.J. 1994) ("The expressed intent of the parties and the circumstances at the time of the Agreement clearly establish that the equipment was to be treated as `trade fixtures'"). This determination, however, must be viewed as question of fact best left to be answered by a jury.

  8. Grad's Town v. LaBaron of New Bedford, Inc.

    1983 Mass. App. Div. 67 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

    What constitutes a trade fixture customarily depends upon the intention of the parties, as the plaintiff herein properly contends. See, e.g., Hook v. Bolton, 199 Mass. 244, 246 (1908); Stone v. Livingston, 222 Mass. 192, 195 (1915); Nadia Bazata, 303 Mass. 496, 499 (1939). Such intention is to be gleaned, however, from all operative circumstances and ordinarily presents a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact for the trial court.