Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,587 chars

disconnected by merely pulling a plug or unscrewing a gas connection. In the
instant case the units sold were of three items: a stove, a sink and a
refrigerator, so constructed as to form one unit, conserving floor space. While
ordinarily a sink is ‘built in’ and made a part of the building, in the instant
case it is part of a unit which is so constructed as to be easily disconnected
and removed without damage to the realty or the article itself. Under such
circumstances we conclude that these units were chattels and not fixtures.”
(Id. at p. 798.) We do not find Daniger to be apposite here because the
sink/cabinet unit in this case was not attached to other appliances that are
commonly understood to constitute personal property. On the contrary the
sink/cabinet unit contained a water heater, which is not an appliance
universally viewed as personal property. Moreover, as Daniger described the
general rule with respect to sinks, “ordinarily a sink is ‘built in’ and made a
part of the building.” (Ibid.)
26
plaster, nails, bolts, or screws” (Civ. Code, § 660), this is “ ‘merely illustrative.
An article may be attached other than by the examples given.’ ” (Kruse
Metals Mfg. Co. v. Utility Trailer Mfg. Co. (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 176, 180
[methods of attachment in statute are “illustrative, not inclusive”].)
Here, we agree with the trial court that the Items were permanent
fixtures that had been annexed to the real property, both because they were
physically attached and because at least some of them were necessary to the

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text