Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

· Page 8 -- October 10, 1999 Z.B. the relocation costs because the tanks were its "personal property," not the property of the landlord, Marr Realty. The authority disagreed, claiming that the tanks were "fixtures" and thus belonged to the landlord. In general, a fixture was personal property of a tenant that was attached to the premises in such a way that it became an indivisible part of the property (and thus the landlord's property), like a window installed by a tenant in his apartment. The authorit_y, said the tanks.' value was included in the eminent domain appraisal of the premises because the tanks were part of the premises owned by Marr Realty. It claimed if it had to pay Marr Oil for the loss of the tanks' use, it would essentially be paying for the tanks twice. Mart Oil appealed the authority's decision to the Massachusetts Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development. The department found the tanks qualified as personal property under the eminent domain statute, so the authority had to pay for the cost of relocating them. The department also found the authority should reduce the appraisal value to Man' Realty accordingly. The authority appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Marr Oil was a tenant of Marr Realty, and the underground storage tanks were not fixtures for purposes of the eminent domain statute. Rather, the author- ity should consider the tanks personal property owned by the tenant, Marr Oil. Under state law, the taking authority must pay a tenant's relocation costs for moveable personal property that the tenant could no longer access or use because of the taking. Despite the fact that some of Marr Oil's and Marr Realty's business records often overlapped, there was sufficient evidence for the court to conclude Man' Oil was the tenant of Marr Realty. Marr Oil paid monthly rent to Man' Realty, and the co-owners of Man' Oil testified that a landlord/ tenant relationship existed. Moveable personal property was defined broadly in the eminent domain context and included the underground storage tanks. Marr Oil had installed the tanks in such a way that they could be removed in the future without harming the property. Even under a traditional fixture analysis, the tanks had to be con- sidered moveable. The fact that Marr Oil installed the tanks to be moveable was enough to show that neither the landlord nor the tenant intended the tanks to become fixtures upon the premises. Despite some evidence that Marr Realty owned the storage tanks, the de- partment had enough evidence to conclude Marr Oil owned the tanks. Marr Oil substantially paid for the installation and maintenance of the tanks. Marr Oil also paid permitting fees and property taxes related to the tanks. Citation: Worcester Redevelopment Authority v. Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 97-P-1955 (1999). see also: Rite Media v. Secretary of the Massachusetts Highway Department, 429 Mass. 814 (1999).