First Wisconsin National Bank v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
849 F.2d 284 (1988)
- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
First Wisconsin National Bank (First Wisconsin) (plaintiff) and Federal Land Bank of St. Paul (the Land Bank) (defendant) each claimed a priority interest to cranberry vines on certain real property. The Land Bank held a mortgage on the real property, which included all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging. The bankruptcy court applied a three-part test to determine whether the cranberry vines constituted a fixture. The bankruptcy court found that the cranberry vines’ roots were embedded in the soil such that the vines were affixed to the real property. Further, the bankruptcy court found that the cranberry vines were planted in the cranberry bog on the real property, which was a use or purpose to which the real property was devoted. Finally, the bankruptcy court determined that the presumed intent of a reasonable person is for a cranberry vine planted in a bog to remain a permanent accession to the real property. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court ruled that the cranberry vines were fixtures and part of the real estate. On appeal, First Wisconsin argued that the cranberry vines were not fixtures. First Wisconsin also argued that even if the cranberry vines were fixtures, the language of the Land Bank’s mortgage was too vague and generic to cover the cranberry vines.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Noland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
