Loans, mortgage

Most physical items can normally be classified into either real or personal property. This is an important
distinction in the real estate industry and can translate into serious money.
The quick way to understand the difference between the two types of properties is to think of personal property,
as everything not permanently attached to the real estate.
As noted above, real estate is land (with its included rights) and anything permanently attached to that land.
Personal property is legally called "chattel," most probably because defining the concept of personal property
became a legal need when cattle became big business.

• Attachment. The permanency of an item’s attachment to the real estate determines whether it is real or
  personal property. For example, a pile of wooden posts would be considered personal property until
  they are driven into the ground to create a fence, at which time, they become part of the real property.
• Transfer. Real property is transferred with a deed; personal property is transferred with a bill of sale.
  With most home purchases, the deed transfers the land and house, while the bill of sale handles the
  transfer of the washer and dryer.

Per the preceding example, personally property can be converted into real property through the process of
attachment. Fixtures are objects that were previously personal property but have been attached to real estate,
thus making them real property. [Note: try not to confuse regular fixtures with trade fixtures; trade fixtures,
sometimes called chattel fixtures, are considered personal property.]
By the same token, real property can be converted into personal property through the process of severance.

The term "real property" normally applies to the legal concept of property ownership. In our system of property
law, there are different elements to ownership, especially with ownership of real estate.
When using the term real property, you should try to avoid thinking of the tangible, physical elements of real
estate. Instead, you should view the term "real property" as a concept or idea. The key issue here is ownership,
and the rights involved with ownership.
In this sense, what you own is not as important as how you own it. These elements or facets of property
ownership are often grouped into a "bundle of rights" that include the following five:

1. Possession. This facet of ownership pertains to the right to occupy the property. For example, a
   landlord gives the renter the right to temporarily possess, enjoy and exclude the property, but the
   landlord keeps the right to control its usage and the right to dispose the property to another person.
   l Enjoyment. This facet pertains to the right to possess the property without interference.
2. Control. This facet pertains to the owner’s right to determine how the property may be used.
   l Disposition. This facet pertains to the owner’s right to give, sell or transfer the property (either in whole
   or in separate "rights") to another individual. This right to dispose is one of the cornerstone of the real
   estate market.
3. Exclusion. This facet pertains to the owner’s right to restrict other individuals from accessing or using
   the owner’s property. Trespassing laws arise from this right.

When many people talk about property rights, it takes on an almost majestic set of rights. This goes hand in hand
with American principles (or myths) about self-reliance, privacy rights and individualism. We may find an
historical basis for this view of property rights in monarchial Europe, where landowners were essentially royalty
and had near-absolute power over their dominions, no matter how small.
Even in America’s allodial system, however, ownership is never infinite or unlimited. The government reserves
the right to "take" any or all of the ownership elements from any private individual. However, the government
must justify any such "taking" as being for the public good and the owner must be compensated the fair market
value of the property taken. As long as the government meets these two conditions and follows due process, the
property owner cannot prevent such a taking.
For example, when the state, county or city must build a new highway or street, they will need to buy the homes
and properties in the path of the proposed road through a taking.
Another, more limited example, would be if the local county wanted to build a river-walk and took an easement
through the property of the riverfront owners. The property technically still belongs to the property owner, but the
easement gives the government full usage and control of the river’s shore.