Beebe v. Richards

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1953 No. Civ. 4489Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the evidence supported the finding that the items were removable trade fixtures and that the plaintiff suffered damages, the judgment must be reversed because the trial court failed to make findings on material issues raised by the defendants' counterclaims.

Issues

Whether the beauty salon equipment constituted removable trade fixtures.
Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages for the detention of the property.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make findings on material issues raised by the defendants' counterclaims regarding unpaid rent and property damage.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the said articles were trade fixtures. As such, they were removable by the plaintiff.”

“It is the settled law in California that where an action is tried before the court without a jury, in the absence of a waiver, findings are required upon all material issues presented by the pleadings and the evidence.”

“We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to make findings on the material issues presented by the counterclaims herein.”

MUSSELL, J.

Plaintiff lived in Palm Springs and, under an oral lease, operated a beauty salon at the Del Tahquitz Hotel. The beauty parlor was operated on a seasonal basis and the rent was paid one-half at the beginning of the season and the balance when the season ended. The lease covered an empty room in the hotel and plaintiff moved in equipment consisting of four driers, four drier bowls, two manicure tables, one shampoo bowl, three dresserettes, five mirrors and other miscellaneous items. Plaintiff attached the shampoo bowl, the dresserettes and the mirrors to the walls of the room by means of lag screws or bolts and installed a Neon sign over the beauty salon.

On March 24, 1950, defendant Richards, manager of the hotel, and employed by the owner, J. H. Norman, in a conversation with plaintiff, informed her that he had orders to raise her rent or require her to move. When plaintiff inquired as to how long she had to move, Richards replied “Immediately. ’ ’ Plaintiff then procured a truck and hired a man to move her equipment. On the night of March 24th, about 8 o’clock p.m., while plaintiff was moving her equipment, Henry Norman, an employee of the hotel, and defendant Richards, prevented the plaintiff from removing her property and locked the driers, drier bowls, dresserettes, mirrors, shampoo bowl and manicure tables in the shop. Demand was then made on plaintiff for the sum of $21.68 rent claimed to be due to March 24th. Plaintiff complied with the demand by tendering her check therefor, which was refused. The impounded equipment was removed by the constable by virtue of a court order on April 6th and retained by him until April 10th, when he delivered it to plaintiff.

[591]

Plaintiff filed this action on April 4,1950, claiming the property or its value and damages for its detention. The trial court gave plaintiff judgment for the possession of the property and damages in the sum of $366.45.

Appellants argue that the court erred in finding that none of the articles were so attached as to become part of the realty. The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the said articles were trade fixtures. As such, they were removable by the plaintiff. (Civ. Code, §1019; 12 Cal.Jur. 577.) Whether they were removable without injury to the freehold was largely a question of fact.

Beebe v. Richards

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief