What is the difference between a fixture and personal property?

Personal property is movable and not attached to the real estate; a fixture is an item that was once personal property but became so attached or adapted to the realty that the law treats it as part of the real property. The distinction matters because fixtures generally convey with the land in a sale, while personal property does not. A plug-in appliance is usually personal property; built-in cabinetry is usually a fixture.

Which factor matters most?

Intention. Texas courts hold that the intention of the party who annexed the item is the predominant factor, and the other two — how it is attached and how well it is adapted to the property — are the evidence from which courts infer that intention. Importantly, intention is judged objectively from the circumstances, not from a party's later self-serving testimony, which will not overcome undisputed contrary evidence.

What is a trade fixture?

A trade fixture is an item a commercial tenant attaches to a leased space to conduct business — shelving, coolers, counters, machinery, signage. Even though it is annexed, the law generally treats it as the tenant's personal property, because the tenant intended to use it during the tenancy rather than to enrich the landlord permanently. A tenant may usually remove trade fixtures before the lease ends, unless the lease provides otherwise, and must repair any damage from removal.

Do fixtures automatically stay with the house when it is sold?

Generally yes — a fixture conveys with the real property unless the sale contract specifically excludes it. That default is exactly why disputes happen when the contract is silent about a borderline item. A seller who wants to keep something should exclude it in writing, and a buyer who expects an item should have it listed as included, so the parties do not have to litigate the three-factor test after closing.

How can buyers and sellers avoid fixture disputes?

Put it in writing. Because the fixture tests hinge on inferred intention, the most reliable way to prevent a fight is an express contract term listing exactly what is included and what is excluded. Chandeliers, mounted televisions, appliances, window treatments, and similar borderline items should be named specifically. A clear written term replaces the uncertainty of the annexation, adaptation, and intention analysis with a definite answer the parties agreed to.

Texas Fixtures vs Personal Property: Logan v. Mullis Test

TL;DR

Whether an item is a fixture — part of the real property that conveys with the land — or personal property that the seller can remove is one of the most common sources of real estate disputes, and in Texas it is answered by common law, not by a single statute. The controlling case is Logan v. Mullis, in which the Texas Supreme Court set out a three-factor test for deciding whether personal property has become a fixture: the mode and sufficiency of annexation (how it is attached and whether removal would damage the realty), the adaptation of the item to the use or purpose of the realty (whether it is customized for or integral to the property), and the intention of the party who annexed it. Texas courts treat intention as the predominant factor, with the first two factors serving as evidence of that intention. A key exception is the trade fixture: an item a commercial tenant attaches to conduct business is generally treated as the tenant's personal property and may be removed before the lease ends — subject to the terms of the lease and the tenant's duty to repair any damage from removal — because the tenant did not intend permanence. The practical rule for a transaction is simple — a fixture conveys with the property unless the contract specifically excludes it, so anything a party wants to keep or to receive should be spelled out in writing to avoid a dispute.

Fixtures versus personal property

Real estate is divided broadly into real property — the land and things permanently attached to it — and personal property, which is movable and not attached. A fixture is the hinge between the two: it began as personal property (a chattel) but became so connected to the real estate that the law now treats it as part of the realty. That reclassification matters because real property and the fixtures on it generally convey to the buyer in a sale, while personal property does not. A refrigerator that merely plugs into an outlet is personal property; built-in cabinetry screwed into the wall studs is typically a fixture.

The reason fixtures generate so much conflict is that the line is not always obvious, and the stakes are concrete: chandeliers, appliances, shelving, window treatments, mounted televisions, and similar items sit near the boundary. Texas does not resolve these disputes with a statutory checklist. Instead, it uses a judicially developed test, which means the governing authority is case law rather than a code section — an important point, because the anchor here is a Supreme Court decision, not a statute.

The Logan v. Mullis three-factor test

The controlling Texas authority is Logan v. Mullis, a 1985 Texas Supreme Court decision that identifies three factors for deciding whether personal property has become a fixture. The first is the mode and sufficiency of annexation, either real or constructive — how the item is attached and whether removing it would damage the real property. Something bolted, wired, or built in weighs toward fixture status; something merely resting in place weighs toward personal property. The second factor is adaptation: whether the article has been adapted to the use or purpose of the realty. An item custom-fitted to the property or essential to its ordinary use — a furnace, a fitted storm window — looks like a fixture even if lightly attached.

The third factor is the intention of the party who annexed the item, and Texas courts treat it as the most important. As the courts frame it, intention is the predominant factor, while the mode of annexation and the adaptation of the item supply the evidence from which that intention is inferred. Intention here is objective, deduced from the circumstances rather than from what a party later claims they meant; testimony of intention will not prevail against undisputed evidence to the contrary. A related doctrine, constructive annexation, can make an item a fixture even without physical attachment when it is a custom part of the realty, such as a made-to-fit door not yet hung.

Factor	What it asks	Weight
Annexation	How is it attached; would removal damage the realty?	Evidence of intention
Adaptation	Is it customized for or integral to the property's use?	Evidence of intention
Intention	Did the annexing party intend it to be permanent?	Predominant factor

Trade fixtures and the role of agreement

The most tested exception is the trade fixture. When a commercial tenant attaches equipment to a leased space to carry on its business — shelving, counters, coolers, signage, machinery — the law generally treats those items as the tenant's personal property, not the landlord's realty, even though they are physically annexed. The theory is intention: a tenant installs business equipment to use during the tenancy, not to make a permanent gift to the landlord. As a result, a tenant may ordinarily remove trade fixtures before the lease ends, unless the lease provides otherwise, and provided the tenant repairs any damage caused by removal. Items not removed by lease end may be deemed abandoned and become the landlord's.

Because the fixture tests turn heavily on inferred intention, the cleanest way to avoid a fixture dispute is an express agreement. A fixture conveys with the real property unless the sale contract specifically excludes it, so a seller who wants to keep a chandelier or a mounted television should exclude it in writing, and a buyer who expects certain items should list them as included. The same logic applies in leases, where the parties can define what the tenant may install and remove. Putting it in writing displaces the multi-factor guesswork with a clear term. This connects directly to the contract formalities in our guide to the statute of frauds, and to the itemization practices in our guide to the residential contract and earnest money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a fixture and personal property?: Personal property is movable and not attached to the real estate; a fixture is an item that was once personal property but became so attached or adapted to the realty that the law treats it as part of the real property. The distinction matters because fixtures generally convey with the land in a sale, while personal property does not. A plug-in appliance is usually personal property; built-in cabinetry is usually a fixture.
What test do Texas courts use to identify a fixture?: The three-factor test from the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Logan v. Mullis: the mode and sufficiency of annexation (how it is attached and whether removal damages the realty), the adaptation of the item to the use or purpose of the realty, and the intention of the party who annexed it. Texas treats intention as the predominant factor, with annexation and adaptation serving as evidence of that intention.
Which factor matters most?: Intention. Texas courts hold that the intention of the party who annexed the item is the predominant factor, and the other two — how it is attached and how well it is adapted to the property — are the evidence from which courts infer that intention. Importantly, intention is judged objectively from the circumstances, not from a party's later self-serving testimony, which will not overcome undisputed contrary evidence.
What is a trade fixture?: A trade fixture is an item a commercial tenant attaches to a leased space to conduct business — shelving, coolers, counters, machinery, signage. Even though it is annexed, the law generally treats it as the tenant's personal property, because the tenant intended to use it during the tenancy rather than to enrich the landlord permanently. A tenant may usually remove trade fixtures before the lease ends, unless the lease provides otherwise, and must repair any damage from removal.
Do fixtures automatically stay with the house when it is sold?: Generally yes — a fixture conveys with the real property unless the sale contract specifically excludes it. That default is exactly why disputes happen when the contract is silent about a borderline item. A seller who wants to keep something should exclude it in writing, and a buyer who expects an item should have it listed as included, so the parties do not have to litigate the three-factor test after closing.
How can buyers and sellers avoid fixture disputes?: Put it in writing. Because the fixture tests hinge on inferred intention, the most reliable way to prevent a fight is an express contract term listing exactly what is included and what is excluded. Chandeliers, mounted televisions, appliances, window treatments, and similar borderline items should be named specifically. A clear written term replaces the uncertainty of the annexation, adaptation, and intention analysis with a definite answer the parties agreed to.

Bottom Line

In Texas, whether an item is a fixture that conveys with the land or personal property the seller may remove is governed by common law, specifically the Texas Supreme Court's three-factor test in Logan v. Mullis: the mode and sufficiency of annexation, the adaptation of the item to the realty, and the intention of the party who annexed it — with intention the predominant factor and the other two serving as evidence of it. A major exception is the trade fixture: a commercial tenant's business equipment is generally the tenant's personal property and removable before lease end, subject to the lease and repair obligations, because it was not intended to be permanent. Because the analysis turns on inferred intention, the practical rule is decisive: a fixture conveys with the property unless the contract specifically excludes it, so parties should name borderline items expressly in writing. For related topics, see our guides to the statute of frauds, the residential contract and earnest money, and landlord-tenant law.

Source: Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) (three-factor fixture test; intention predominant), and Texas common law on trade fixtures. Texas Real Estate Research Center — fixtures and Logan v. Mullis · Texas REALTORS — fixtures and improvements (Logan v. Mullis) · Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) (FindLaw)