Francis B. Freeman, Jr., (plaintiff) appeals a judgment for Mary Ann Barrs (defendant) in an action plaintiff brought to replevy [recover] a cattle scale. * * * 

In 2005, defendant purchased a tract of real estate consisting of approximately 4,000 acres from plaintiff for a price of $3,500,000. There were four residences on the property, two barns, and a covered pole barn with open sides. The pole barn houses the cattle scale that was the subject of plaintiff’s replevin action and an enclosed veterinarian office. 

The contract between the parties was a form contract. Its paragraph 2 states: 

Inclusions, Exclusions and Exceptions

The Property includes any and all rights, privileges and easements appurtenant thereto, together with all existing buildings and improvements and all affixed equipment now located thereon, if any, including all mechanical, HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems, fixtures and equipment, fencing and other attached fixtures, trees, bushes, shrubs and plants, feed bunks in the fence, installed fences and gates, propane tanks not under lease, water association rights and telephone rights where applicable, hog and cattle waterers in the fence or permanently installed, grain storage buildings and hog and cattle shades on permanent foundations, auger and conveyor systems. All grain, crops, livestock, hay, silage, and non-affixed personal property on the real estate are reserved by Seller or Seller’s tenant.… 

***

The Plaintiff purchased the present scale in June 2001 for Eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). The scale was sold as a portable model. Plaintiff placed the scale in a pole-type barn on a concrete pad poured for the scale, then poured concrete ramps which would allow cattle to enter and exit the scale. Plaintiff further welded iron fence into place to help funnel the cattle through the scale area. * * * 

The scale was designed to be portable, and 70% of the scales he sold were installed in the present manner. He further stated that he could move the present scales by cutting away a welded metal fence and lifting the scale with heavy machinery, and [sic] process which he often performs. McFadden further stated that the removal of the fence would take approximately one hour with use of a cutting torch, and thereafter the scale could be moved within fifteen minutes.… 

***

Judgment was entered for defendant on plaintiff’s replevin claim. * * * 

***

Paragraph 2 of the real estate contract between the parties unambiguously provides that the sale included all affixed equipment located on the property. Courts do not rewrite unambiguous contracts but construe them as written. [Citation.] Thus, as defendant suggests, if the scale constitutes a fixture, the judgment will be affirmed. 

A fixture is an article in the nature of personal property which has been so annexed to the realty that it is regarded as part of the land and partakes of the legal incidents of the freehold and belongs to the person owning the land. [Citation.] The test for determining whether property has become a fixture is three-fold, consisting of: (1) the annexation to the realty; (2) the adaptation to the use to which the realty is devoted; and (3) the intent that the object become a permanent accession to the land. [Citation.] These elements or tests all present questions of fact and are not ordinarily resolvable by law. [Citation.] Whether or not an article is a fixture depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. [Citation.] 

***

* * * The * * * two elements, adaptation and intent, are more important in determining whether a chattel became a fixture than the method by which the chattel is affixed to a freehold. [Citation.] Annexation that may be slight and easily displaced does not prevent an article from becoming a fixture when the other elements are found. [Citation.] 

Annexation 

Plaintiff purchased the scale and printer in 2001. The scale was purchased by plaintiff to ‘‘start selling cattle from the ranch and not sending them to the sale barn to keep the price up a little.’’ It was placed in a roofed structure that housed cattle-working pens and a small veterinary office. The scale weighs approximately 6,500 pounds. A fence and gates within the structure had to be cut off in order to install the scale. A concrete slab was poured in the structure for placement of the scale. The size and shape of the slab were designed to accommodate the scale. Metal cleats were welded to the bottom of the scale before it was placed on the slab. The scale was placed on pipes on the ground and pushed with a tractor across the pipes onto the slab. Concrete ramps were installed on two sides of the scale and fencing was constructed to direct cattle onto the scale. The concrete construction (other than the slab) and the metal pipe fencing were completed after the scale was placed on the slab in the pole barn. The metal posts for the fence were set in the concrete. The scale has remained in place since its installation.

Adaptation

Ray Stone had been ranch manager for plaintiff. At the time of trial he had an agreement with defendant that permitted him to run cattle on the property. He was running 200 head of cows and 90 calves on the property. He ‘‘just kind of [saw] after the place’’ for her. He told the court that the scale was integral to a cattle-working facility. The scale was used to weigh cattle for sale and to determine required dosages of medicine administered to cattle. 

Intent

The scale was described as portable by its manufacturer. The manufacturer sold peripheral items that permitted the scale to be moved. This included a trailer and an inverter. Plaintiff did not buy that equipment. Ray Stone told the court that the scale was purchased ‘‘to be stationary whether it was portable or not.’ 

This court concludes that the scale was a fixture; that, therefore, the sale of the real estate on which it was situate included the sale of the scale. A 6,500-pound scale placed on a specially sized concrete pad and surrounded by metal pole fencing set in the concrete is annexed to the real estate on which the concrete pad is poured. The permanency of the installation is emphasized by the fact the facility is covered * * *. The scale was put in place to facilitate the cattle operation on the premises. It had been used for that purpose since its purchase. Its adaptation for that purpose enhanced the operation of the cattle ranch. 

Mindful that ‘‘[i]n determining the intention of the person making the annexation the court … is not bound by [that person’s] testimony on this point, nor by his secret or undisclosed purpose but may decide this issue from his acts and conduct and the surrounding facts and circumstances,’’ [Citation], this court holds that the evidence in this case demonstrates that it was plaintiff’s intent for the scale to be a permanent installation; that the scale is a fixture and, therefore, part of the real estate. 

***

The trial court’s finding for defendant on plaintiff’s claim for replevin was the correct result for the reasons heretofore stated. Plaintiff’s point is denied. The judgment is affirmed.