Modern TVs

Would an lcd / plasma television mounted and cable through a wall be a fixture rather than a chattel?

Cables run through the wall and the television is screwed to the wall. The television is huge and adds charachter to the room. Adds to the engoyment of the property . Degree of annexation Object of annexation do help i have to write a report on fixtures and chattels thanks.

Public Comments

1. Sorry I can't go into the law because of other restrictions, but I can tell you this much. A chattel is easy to move. This object sounds like a rough piece of work to just come in and carry out. If you look it up, chattel is also something they called a "mistress". She was not, for the most part, attached to the wall. (But was a drain on the coffer!)
2. It sounds like a grey area by your description. Since the TV is screwed to the wall (instead of hung) with service wires coming through the wall (instead of being plugged in), it would meet the definition of a fixture in many states. However, it is not an integral part of the house (essential to its use), such as a ceiling light, and could be easily disconnected and removed. Thus in some other states it might be considered a chattel. Referring to degree of annexation (is this a law course?), the question is whether screwing the TV to the wall and running wires through the wall establishes a sufficient degree of annexation to make it a fixture? On the "pro" side is the fact that removal would leave some damage that would have to be repaired and goes to the intent of the owner as to whether it was intended to become a permanent (fixture) which a buyer would have a right to rely on. Referring to the object of annexation, the question is whether the TV, by its nature, regardless of the manner of installation, can ever become an integral part of the realty, or does this manner of installation (permanent modification of the realty) in fact make it so. Different states, and indeed, different courts within the same state in the absence of clear precedent, could decide either way. Questions of this sort, as a practical matter, arise when there is a dispute between buyer and seller as to whether the object stays with the realty or not, and where, unfortunately, no mention of the object's status is incorporated in the contract of sale. The question for the court to decide then, is which assumption is the more reasonable. The buyer would argue for a high degree of annexation, and the seller would be arguing for a low degree as well as the nature of the TV not reasonably ever being anything but personal property. If the seller, upon removing the TV, had repaired the screw holes and the opening for the service wires, thus demonstrating a very low degree of annexation, the buyer would have a difficult argument to make on the issue of "degree", and no argument at all, realistically, on the issue of "object". Contrast this to the removal of a "family heirloom" sink. A sink is connected to the realty by three pipes and myriad fasteners to hold it in place, all of which are time consuming and requiring a significant degree of skill to install. A sink is also an integral part of the realty in that it is essential to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the premises. Absent mention in the sales contract, and regardless of its status as a family heirloom, it is clearly a fixture in both degree and nature (object). Finally, (at last?) in your example the decision could go either way depending on more facts. Did the wall require extensive repairs? Was the nature of this particular TV model such that it was intended (by the manufacturer) to be installed and left forever in place (as a fixture)? Did the presence of the TV add so much to the character and enjoyment of the room that its removal materially deminished such character and enjoyment so that another had to be bought to restore the value of the room? Because this scenario is not "black and white", the question of intent and reasonable expectation might have to be brought in decide the issues of degree and object, assuming the absence of clear precedent in a given jurisdiction. Hope this helps. (Do I get a "best answer" for my effort?)