## Facts

- In 1964, defendant Neil Hicks and Hoy Johnson (plaintiff Margaret Johnson’s then-husband) installed an irrigation system along the boundary of their neighboring properties.
- The men split installation costs equally and shared the labor; afterward, they split maintenance expenses and the electricity costs to run the water pump.
- The system included approximately 700 feet of two-inch pipe running across and along the edge of the properties, and about 1,500 feet of moveable aluminum pipe used to irrigate the Johnsons’ pasture.
- Hoy Johnson testified the installation was intended to be permanent; he also testified that when he later sold the pastureland, he let the sprinkler system go with the land.
- Hoy Johnson testified the system was “probably three-fourths underground,” though the portion located on what later became Margaret Johnson’s property was above ground.
- In 1969, the Johnsons divorced. Margaret Johnson was awarded the family home and the parcel on which the home sat, which included part of the irrigation line’s placement.
- Hoy Johnson testified that after the divorce he allowed Margaret Johnson to keep using the irrigation system and refused Hicks’s efforts to remove or cut off her access.
- Margaret Johnson continued using the system to water her yard and trees until April 1, 1979, when Hicks entered her property and moved the irrigation pipe onto his own property, preventing her continued use.
- Margaret Johnson filed a suit in equity seeking a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to restore the irrigation line to its prior location on her property, to stop further interference, and to recover general damages.
- The Hickses counterclaimed for compensation for Margaret Johnson’s past use of the irrigation system.
- The trial court concluded Margaret Johnson had not proved a right to use the irrigation system and dismissed all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the installed (including constructively annexed) portion of the irrigation system was a fixture that became part of the realty and passed with Margaret Johnson’s parcel.
2. Whether, based on that property interest, defendants could lawfully remove or relocate the line from Margaret Johnson’s land, or whether she was entitled to a mandatory injunction restoring it.
3. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Margaret Johnson’s claims (and how the counterclaim should be handled in light of any fixture determination).

## Decision

- Because the suit was in equity, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo.
- The court held that the constructively annexed portion of the irrigation system was a fixture that passed with the land to Margaret Johnson, giving her a property interest in that portion as part of her real property.
- On that basis, the court concluded defendants were not entitled to remove or relocate the line from Margaret Johnson’s property in the manner they did.
- The court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings and entry of relief consistent with the opinion, including restoring the irrigation line and addressing the counterclaim in a manner consistent with the fixture ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Whether an item is a fixture depends largely on objective evidence of intent that the item be a permanent improvement, considered alongside annexation and the item’s relationship to the land’s use.
- Property can be treated as a fixture through constructive annexation when it is installed as part of an integrated system meant to serve the land, even if some components (such as moveable pipe) are not continuously affixed.
- A fixture becomes part of the realty and generally passes with conveyance of the land; a person who holds title to the land holds the related property interest in the fixture.
- In an equitable action, an appellate court may review de novo and order mandatory injunctive relief when removal of a fixture interferes with the landowner’s property rights.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the installed portion of the shared irrigation system was a fixture intended to be permanent and therefore passed with Margaret Johnson’s land, giving her a property right that defendants could not defeat by relocating the line; the court reversed the dismissal and remanded for entry of injunctive and related relief consistent with that determination.


Johnson v. Hicks, 626 P.2d 938 (1981)