CASE STUDY: CRYSTAL SMITH

Crystal Smith, a 33-year old African American homemaker, cake to an outpatient clinic seeking “someone to talk to” about feelings of despair that had intensified over the previous 8-10 months. She was particularly upset about marital conflict and an uncharacteristic mistrust of her in-laws.

Ms. Smith said she had begun to wake before dawn, feeling down and tearful. She had difficulty getting out of bed and completing her usual household activities. At times, she felt guilty for not being her “usual self.” At other times, she became easily irritated with her husband and her in-laws for minor transgressions. She had previously relied on her mother-in-law to assist with the children, but she no longer entirely trusted her with that responsibility. That worry, in combination with her insomnia and fatigue, made it very difficult for Ms. Smith to get her children to school on time. In the past few months, she had lost 13 pounds without dieting. She denied current suicidal ideation, saying she “would never do something like that,” but acknowledged having thought that she “should just give up” and that she “would be better off dead.”

Two months previously, Ms. Smith had seen a psychiatrist for several weeks and received an anti-depressant. She reluctantly gave it a try, discontinuing it quickly because it made her feel tired. She had also dropped out of therapy, indicating that the psychiatrist didn’t seem to understand her.

Ms. Smith lived with her husband of 13 years and two school-age children. Her husband’s parents lived next door. She said her marriage was good, although her husband suggested she “go see someone” so that she would not be “yelling at everyone all the time.” While historically sociable, she rarely talked to her own mother and sister, much less her friends. A regular churchgoer, she had quit attending because she felt her faith was “weak.” Her pastor had always been supportive, but she had not contacted him with her problems because “he wouldn’t want to hear about these kinds of issues.”

Ms. Smith described herself as having been an outgoing, friendly child. She grew up with her parents and three siblings. She recalled feeling quite upset at age 10-11 when her parents divorced and her mom remarried. Because of fights with other kids at school, she met with a school counselor with whom she felt a bond. Unlike the psychiatrist she had recently consulted, Ms. Smith felt the counselor did not “get into my business” and helped her recover. She said she became quieter as she entered junior high school, with fewer friends and little interest in studying. She married her husband at age 20 and worked in retail sales until the birth of their first child when she was 23 years old.

Ms. Smith had not used alcohol since her first pregnancy and denied any use of illicit substances. She denied past and current use of prescribed medications, other than the brief trial of the antidepressant medication. She reported generally good health.

On the mental status examination, Ms. Smith was a casually groomed young woman who was cohere and goal-directed. She had difficulty making eye contact with the white middle-aged therapist. She was cooperative but mildly guarded and slow to respond. She needed encouragement to elaborate her thinking. She was periodically tearful and generally appeared sad. She denied psychosis, although reported occasionally feeling mistrustful of her family. She denied confusion, hallucinations, suicidality, or homicidality. Cognition, insight, and judgment were all considered normal.

List what you would diagnose for each of the 5 axes and a brief explanation of why:

AXIS I: _________________________________

Explain your reason for this specific choice:

AXIS II: _________________________________

Explain your reason for this specific choice:

AXIS III: _________________________________

Explain your reason for this specific choice:

AXIS IV: _________________________________

Explain your reason for this specific choice:

AXIS V: _________________________________

DSM-5 Diagnosis (write diagnosis in format of DSM-5 as well):

Mismatch of Demand and Supply in UAE Property Market and the introduction of VAT

Chances of a major drop in Dubai’s home rentals are receding by the quarter — much of the new stock coming through is catering to the premium end of the rental market. And even if there is some softening in their asking rates, these properties are still way out of reach for budget-conscious tenants.

Phidar Advisory in its latest update on Dubai property trends offers numbers that show why. Two-thirds of the 6,000 apartments and 1,500 town houses and villas scheduled for completion during the second-half of this year are already available for leasing. Of this, villas and town houses make up a fifth, and carry rents of a minimum of Dh120,000 a year. These are generally affordable for households earning at least Dh360,000 per year, according to the consultancy.

But a sizeable number command Dh200,000 and over, and only accessible for those earning at least Dh500,000 a year and much more. “Thus, the new supply delivered is not the supply that is needed,” states the report.

Weak demand combined with moderate supply growth will lead to further rent and price atrophy, likely into and possibly through 2018,” said Downs

How VAT has affected Dubai real estate businesses, so far

It has been nearly two months since value-added tax (VAT) was introduced in the UAE and various industries are feeling its effects in different ways and varied intensity. While residential property is generally free from VAT, some Dubai real estate developers and brokers are feeling the pressure because other business expenses often incur VAT. To get a better view of the impact on real estate-related businesses in the early days of VAT, we talked to executives in the industry on the following two factors about their insights and how they are coping with the new tax regime. Their responses are noted below.

Cost-conscious developments

VAT is making the construction and real estate community more cost-conscious. As a developer, we do not charge the 5 per cent VAT to our customers. However, there is VAT impact on all the outgoings like contractors, sub-contractors, consultant, and broker commission and supplier payments. For example, on a Dh100-million construction, we would be paying Dh5 million VAT on contractor bills from January 1. The additional cost makes everyone cost-conscious and going forward I assume the contractors will try to carry out the same volume of work at lower cost by being more efficient. In a way, VAT will make every business more careful and responsible about their expenses.

Competitive pricing

If a contractor passes on VAT-related costs to the developer, it is likely to have an impact on a developer’s selling price. However, with consumers becoming more price sensitive, keeping prices competitive is critical for developers. Hence, a sudden spike in launch prices, however small, could affect demand. As such, residential off-plan sales have been exempted from any VAT, but any future inflation in construction costs could impact sales prices. The first supply of residential property is zero-rated within three years of completion, which allows developers to recover VAT on the construction of residential properties, including elements on architectural design, consulting, contracting and materials used. However, real estate developers should consider the complexities arising from mixed developments involving commercial and residential leasing and the need to assign VAT recovery.

No burden on buyers

VAT has an impact on the developer, as it cannot pass on [the tax burden] to the buyer of residential property. Building material suppliers of our residential projects send us invoices with VAT, which we the developer absorb without burdening the buyers. Therefore, the burden stops at the developer level. This will have an impact on profits of the developer. In commercial properties, the developer can pass on VAT to the buyer, but the market is not conducive to increase prices.

Minimal effect on cost

Residential property is free of VAT, so neither the developer nor the buyer is affected by its implementation as developers can be reimbursed for VAT when the first supply is in the market. Therefore, the VAT expense effect comes down to be minimal, which should not bring any difference to the prices. Practically, the implementation of VAT will increase by 1.5-2.5 per cent the general expenses of any business in the UAE, since the companies are not paying VAT on all of its transactions.

Buyers defer purchase

It is probably too early to say with any degree of accuracy exactly how VAT has affected the cost of selling within the secondary market. I did, however, state last year that the sentiment would be affected by the introduction of this tax. Some buyers will defer the purchase of property, preferring to take a wait-and-see approach before taking the plunge. This potentially has already happened, as sales of off-plan units did slowdown in January. If buyers are cautious, fewer sales will take place, putting pressure on an already challenging market. This, in turn, could lead to more softening of prices.

Questions for Discussion : : Please Do not copy and Paste and answer in Details

1-   Model the situation mentioned in the above scenario in the context of market equilibrium of Commercial property market given the introduction of VAT by the UAE government?  

2-   What impact do you anticipate on the demand of/supply for residential apartments from developer, seller and buyer point of view? Will there be excess demand/ excess supply eventually? Graphical illustration is required  

3- How the listed factors can influence (If any) the demand, supply and pricing of UAE commercial and residential property. Show your work through graphical illustrations  

ERP and Change Management at Nestlé – case study analysis Read the case study and answer the questions: A year after signing a $200 million contract with SAP and more than $80 million for consulting services and maintenance, HSBC securities in London, downgraded their recommendation on Nestlé SA stock. Although the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project will probably provide long-term benefits, the concern was what short-term effect the project will have on the company. Nestlé Company’s goal is to build a business as the world’s leading nutrition, health, and wellness company. The company was founded in 1867 when Henri Nestlé developed the first milk food for infants and saved the life of a neighbor’s child. Nestlé is headquartered in Vevey, Switzerland with offices worldwide. Aside from chocolate and confectionaries, the company is widely known by​its major brands, which​include​ In the early 1990s, Nestlé was a decentralized company where each of its brands, such as Carnation® and Friskies®, operated independently. The brands were unified and reorganized under Nestlé USA, but the divisions still had geographically dispersed headquarters and made their own business decisions autonomously. More- over, a team charged with examining the various systems and processes throughout the company found many problematic redundancies. For example, Nestlé USA brands were paying twenty-nine different prices for vanilla to the same vendor. Jeri Dunn, vice president and CIO of Nestlé USA, said “Every plant would buy vanilla from the vendor, and the vendor would just get whatever it thought it could get. And the reason we couldn’t check is because every division and every factory got to name vanilla whatever it wanted to. So you could call it 1234, and it might have a whole specification behind it, and I might call it 7778. We had no way of comparing.” Dunn and her team recommended technology standards and common systems for each brand to follow that would pro- vide for cost savings and group buying power. Dunn then went to Switzerland to facilitate the implementation of a common methodology for Nestlé projects worldwide, but when she returned stateside two years later as a CIO she found that only a few of her recommendations were being followed. As Dunn recalls, “My team could name the standards, but the implementation rollout was at the whim of the businesses.” Dunn’s return to the states followed USA chair- man and CEO Joe Weller’s vision for uniting all of the individual brands into one tightly integrated company. Reflecting on the company’s condition, Dunn said “I don’t think they knew how ugly it was. We had nine different general ledgers and twenty-eight points of customer entry. We had multiple purchasing systems. We had no clue how much volume we were doing with a particular vendor because every factory set up their oven vendor masters and purchased on their own.” Dunn and a group of managers from finance, supply chain, distribution, and purchasing formed a key stakeholder team to study what Nestlé did right and what could be improved upon. They were given about two hours to present their findings to Joe Weller and other top executives, but the meeting ended up taking the whole day. The blueprint from the stakeholder team included SAP as a cornerstone project that would take three to five years to implement. As Dunn points out, “We made it very clear that this would be a business process reorganization and that you couldn’t do it without changing the way you did business. There was going to be pain involved. It was going to be slow process, and this was not a software project.” Unfortunately, senior management did not take the key stakeholder team’s recommendation to heart, nor did they understand the pain it would create. As Dunn said, “They still thought it was just about software.” In October, a team of fifty senior business managers and ten senior IT managers formed a team to carry out the SAP implementation. The team was responsible for defining a set of common processes for every division. More specifically, each divisional function, such as purchasing, manufacturing, inventory, accounting, and sales, would have to give up their old ways and start doing things the new Nestlé way. Another team spent eighteen months reviewing each piece of data in all the divisions in order to come up with a common data design across the entire business. For example, vanilla would now be coded as 1234 in every division so that the SAP system could be customized with uniform business processes and data. However, the team decided against using SAP’s supply-chain module, Advanced Planner and Optimizer (APO), because it was recently released and therefore viewed as too risky. Instead, the team recommended a supply-chain module called Manugistics that was developed by an SAP partner. By March, the team had a project plan in place where Nestlé would implement five SAP modules: purchasing, financials, sales and distribution, accounts payable and receivable, and the Manugistics supply-chain module across every Nestlé division. Implementation began in July with a deadline of approximately eighteen months. The deadline was met, but just as many problems were created as were solved. Before all of the modules were rolled out, there was a great deal employee resistance. It appears that the problem was that none of the groups affected by the new system and processes were represented on the key stakeholder team. Dunn recalls her near fatal mistake. “We were always surprising [the heads of sales and the divisions] because we would bring something up to the executive steering committee that they weren’t privy to.” By the time of the expected rollout, the project had collapsed into chaos. Workers did not understand how to use the new system or the new processes. The divisional managers were just as confused as their employees and probably even a bit angrier. Dunn’s help desk took 300 calls a day, and she admits “We were really naive in the respect that these changes had to be managed.” Subsequently, morale deteriorated and nobody took an interest in doing things a new way. Turnover reached a new high of 77 percent. Supply-chain planners were unable and unwilling to abandon their familiar spread- sheets in favor of the complex Manugistics system. Other technical problems began to arise due to the rush to make the project’s deadline. Integration points between modules were overlooked. For example, although the purchasing departments now used common data conventions and followed the same processes, their systems could not integrate with the financial or sales groups. The project was stopped in June. A co-project man- ager was reassigned and Dunn was given full responsibility. In October, Dunn invited nineteen key stakeholders and business managers to a three-day offsite retreat. While the retreat started off as a gripe session, the members eventually made the decision that the project would have to be started over. The project team had lost sight of the big picture of how the various components would fit together. It was decided that the project would begin again with defining the business requirements before trying to fit the business into a mold that had to be completed by a predetermined deadline. Perhaps more importantly, they concluded that they required support from key divisional managers and that better communication was needed to tell all the employees when changes were taking place, when, why, and how. By the following April, the project team had a well-defined plan to follow. By May, Tom James was hired as director of process change and was responsible for acting as a liaison between the project team and the various divisions. James was shocked by the still poor relationships between the project team and divisions, so he and Dunn began meeting face to face with the division managers and started conducting regular surveys better to understand how the employees were affected by the new systems and how they were coping with the changes. One difference was Dunn and the project team would act on what they found. For example, a rollout of a new co-manufacturing package was delayed six months because feedback from the users suggested that they would not be prepared to make the process changes in time. Although this project took much longer than expected, Dunn is not ashamed of the schedule overrun or the numerous dead ends. She believes that slow and steady wins the race, and that the project has already achieved a significant return on investment, especially in terms of better demand forecasting. “The old process involved a sales guy giving a number to the demand planner, who says ‘Those guys don’t know what the hell they are talking about; I’m going to give them this number.’ The demand planner turned the number to factory, and factory said demand planner doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Then the factory changes that number again.” Now, SAP provides common databases and processes that allow for demand forecasts to be more accurate. Since all of Nestlé USA is using the same data, it can forecast down to the distribution center level. Sub- sequently, inventory levels and redistribution expenses can be reduced. The company reports that improvements in the supply chain alone have accounted for a major piece of the $325 million Nestlé has saved by implementing SAP. Dunn reflects that if she had to do it over again, she would focus on changing the business processes, get- ting universal buy-in, and then and only then installing SAP. As she said, “If you try to do it with a system first, you will have an installation, not an implementation. And there is a big difference between installing software and implementing a solution.

+ Context and Background Information ?
+ Identification of the Main Issues/ Problems ?
+ Analysis of the Issues ?

ERP and Change Management at Nestlé – case study analysis Read the case study and answer the questions: A year after signing a $200 million contract with SAP and more than $80 million for consulting services and maintenance, HSBC securities in London, downgraded their recommendation on Nestlé SA stock. Although the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project will probably provide long-term benefits, the concern was what short-term effect the project will have on the company. Nestlé Company’s goal is to build a business as the world’s leading nutrition, health, and wellness company. The company was founded in 1867 when Henri Nestlé developed the first milk food for infants and saved the life of a neighbor’s child. Nestlé is headquartered in Vevey, Switzerland with offices worldwide. Aside from chocolate and confectionaries, the company is widely known by​its major brands, which​include​ In the early 1990s, Nestlé was a decentralized company where each of its brands, such as Carnation® and Friskies®, operated independently. The brands were unified and reorganized under Nestlé USA, but the divisions still had geographically dispersed headquarters and made their own business decisions autonomously. More- over, a team charged with examining the various systems and processes throughout the company found many problematic redundancies. For example, Nestlé USA brands were paying twenty-nine different prices for vanilla to the same vendor. Jeri Dunn, vice president and CIO of Nestlé USA, said “Every plant would buy vanilla from the vendor, and the vendor would just get whatever it thought it could get. And the reason we couldn’t check is because every division and every factory got to name vanilla whatever it wanted to. So you could call it 1234, and it might have a whole specification behind it, and I might call it 7778. We had no way of comparing.” Dunn and her team recommended technology standards and common systems for each brand to follow that would pro- vide for cost savings and group buying power. Dunn then went to Switzerland to facilitate the implementation of a common methodology for Nestlé projects worldwide, but when she returned stateside two years later as a CIO she found that only a few of her recommendations were being followed. As Dunn recalls, “My team could name the standards, but the implementation rollout was at the whim of the businesses.” Dunn’s return to the states followed USA chair- man and CEO Joe Weller’s vision for uniting all of the individual brands into one tightly integrated company. Reflecting on the company’s condition, Dunn said “I don’t think they knew how ugly it was. We had nine different general ledgers and twenty-eight points of customer entry. We had multiple purchasing systems. We had no clue how much volume we were doing with a particular vendor because every factory set up their oven vendor masters and purchased on their own.” Dunn and a group of managers from finance, supply chain, distribution, and purchasing formed a key stakeholder team to study what Nestlé did right and what could be improved upon. They were given about two hours to present their findings to Joe Weller and other top executives, but the meeting ended up taking the whole day. The blueprint from the stakeholder team included SAP as a cornerstone project that would take three to five years to implement. As Dunn points out, “We made it very clear that this would be a business process reorganization and that you couldn’t do it without changing the way you did business. There was going to be pain involved. It was going to be slow process, and this was not a software project.” Unfortunately, senior management did not take the key stakeholder team’s recommendation to heart, nor did they understand the pain it would create. As Dunn said, “They still thought it was just about software.” In October, a team of fifty senior business managers and ten senior IT managers formed a team to carry out the SAP implementation. The team was responsible for defining a set of common processes for every division. More specifically, each divisional function, such as purchasing, manufacturing, inventory, accounting, and sales, would have to give up their old ways and start doing things the new Nestlé way. Another team spent eighteen months reviewing each piece of data in all the divisions in order to come up with a common data design across the entire business. For example, vanilla would now be coded as 1234 in every division so that the SAP system could be customized with uniform business processes and data. However, the team decided against using SAP’s supply-chain module, Advanced Planner and Optimizer (APO), because it was recently released and therefore viewed as too risky. Instead, the team recommended a supply-chain module called Manugistics that was developed by an SAP partner. By March, the team had a project plan in place where Nestlé would implement five SAP modules: purchasing, financials, sales and distribution, accounts payable and receivable, and the Manugistics supply-chain module across every Nestlé division. Implementation began in July with a deadline of approximately eighteen months. The deadline was met, but just as many problems were created as were solved. Before all of the modules were rolled out, there was a great deal employee resistance. It appears that the problem was that none of the groups affected by the new system and processes were represented on the key stakeholder team. Dunn recalls her near fatal mistake. “We were always surprising [the heads of sales and the divisions] because we would bring something up to the executive steering committee that they weren’t privy to.” By the time of the expected rollout, the project had collapsed into chaos. Workers did not understand how to use the new system or the new processes. The divisional managers were just as confused as their employees and probably even a bit angrier. Dunn’s help desk took 300 calls a day, and she admits “We were really naive in the respect that these changes had to be managed.” Subsequently, morale deteriorated and nobody took an interest in doing things a new way. Turnover reached a new high of 77 percent. Supply-chain planners were unable and unwilling to abandon their familiar spread- sheets in favor of the complex Manugistics system. Other technical problems began to arise due to the rush to make the project’s deadline. Integration points between modules were overlooked. For example, although the purchasing departments now used common data conventions and followed the same processes, their systems could not integrate with the financial or sales groups. The project was stopped in June. A co-project man- ager was reassigned and Dunn was given full responsibility. In October, Dunn invited nineteen key stakeholders and business managers to a three-day offsite retreat. While the retreat started off as a gripe session, the members eventually made the decision that the project would have to be started over. The project team had lost sight of the big picture of how the various components would fit together. It was decided that the project would begin again with defining the business requirements before trying to fit the business into a mold that had to be completed by a predetermined deadline. Perhaps more importantly, they concluded that they required support from key divisional managers and that better communication was needed to tell all the employees when changes were taking place, when, why, and how. By the following April, the project team had a well-defined plan to follow. By May, Tom James was hired as director of process change and was responsible for acting as a liaison between the project team and the various divisions. James was shocked by the still poor relationships between the project team and divisions, so he and Dunn began meeting face to face with the division managers and started conducting regular surveys better to understand how the employees were affected by the new systems and how they were coping with the changes. One difference was Dunn and the project team would act on what they found. For example, a rollout of a new co-manufacturing package was delayed six months because feedback from the users suggested that they would not be prepared to make the process changes in time. Although this project took much longer than expected, Dunn is not ashamed of the schedule overrun or the numerous dead ends. She believes that slow and steady wins the race, and that the project has already achieved a significant return on investment, especially in terms of better demand forecasting. “The old process involved a sales guy giving a number to the demand planner, who says ‘Those guys don’t know what the hell they are talking about; I’m going to give them this number.’ The demand planner turned the number to factory, and factory said demand planner doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Then the factory changes that number again.” Now, SAP provides common databases and processes that allow for demand forecasts to be more accurate. Since all of Nestlé USA is using the same data, it can forecast down to the distribution center level. Sub- sequently, inventory levels and redistribution expenses can be reduced. The company reports that improvements in the supply chain alone have accounted for a major piece of the $325 million Nestlé has saved by implementing SAP. Dunn reflects that if she had to do it over again, she would focus on changing the business processes, get- ting universal buy-in, and then and only then installing SAP. As she said, “If you try to do it with a system first, you will have an installation, not an implementation. And there is a big difference between installing software and implementing a solution.

Abstract ?

+ Context and Background Information ?

+ Identification of the Main Issues/ Problems?

+ Analysis of the Issues?

Issue #1

Our clients Fred and Sarah Thompson were divorced in December 2014. During their marriage, they had two children, Aaron and Lisa. At the time of the divorce, the children were ages 13 and 12, respectively. The divorce decree provides for joint custody of the children. Specifically, Fred and Sarah are to have the children in alternating weeks. Both Fred and Sarah are professionals with high incomes, so the divorce decree doesn’t provide for child support. It also does not stipulate which parent is to claim the dependency exemptions.

During 2017, Fred and Sarah tried to alternate custody to the best of their ability. Work issues, however, caused a great deal of “trading” to take place. Fred kept the children for two weeks while Sarah was out of town on business during her custody week. Sarah would return the favor by keeping the children during one of Fred’s weeks. Unfortunately, neither parent kept any records, so it’s impossible to determine who had the most custody. Sarah feels that she had custody half of the year. Fred tends to agree as to Lisa, but disagrees as to Aaron. Fred recalls that he took Aaron walleye fishing during one of Sarah’s custody weeks. It looks like the two of them contributed equally to the children’s support. Neither parent has or will sign a Form 8332. Both parents know that the dependency exemption goes away under the new tax law, so 2017 will be the last year either can claim it. Which parent should claim the dependency exemptions for the children for 2017?

Issue #2

Fred is an insurance agent who receives a commission on each policy he sells. During 2016, he purchased a policy on his own life, naming his wife, Sarah as the beneficiary. He did not report the commission on the policy as gross income because he considered the commission a reduction in his cost (like a discount) for the life insurance. The Thompson’s 2016 joint return is being audited and the agent is challenging the exclusion. Is the agent correct, or is the position taken by our client correct? Provide citations to all relevant authority. I’ll need that for my meeting with the auditor.

Which of the following is an example of adverse possession?

B. Sally owned a one-acre lot next to a state park. She decided to donate the lot to the state in order to expand the park. Sally’s children claimed they had a right to the land, not the state.

C. In 2005, Megan fenced off a field belonging to Farmer Giles, put a new lock on the gate leading to the field, built a wooden shed, and grew vegetables on the land. After 10 years, Megan gained title to the land without paying Farmer Giles.

D. Bob needed a place to stay so he broke into an empty house and stayed there for nearly a month until the house owner asked the police to make Bob leave.

A. Years ago, your grandmother bought 10 acres of land, paid the property taxes, and left you the property in her will.

A landowner builds a nine-foot fence topped with barbed wire around his property to keep people out, and posts warning signs on the fence saying “DANGER: Barbed Wire.” A group of graduate students decides to go cow tipping on the landowner’s property. The students climb the fence in the night, and one student suffers injuries from the barbed wire. What duty of care does the landowner owe to the students?

D. No duty because the student trespassed onto the owner’s land

B. A duty not to intentionally injure and to warn about known defects on the property

A. A duty not to intentionally injure the student

C. A duty to inspect the property for defects, correct defects, and warn about defects

Marta places a large, pre-assembled plastic greenhouse in her backyard, with the steel frame bolted into concrete that she poured specially for that purpose. She attaches gas-heating ducts and builds a brick walkway around the greenhouse. Now the town wants to raise her real property taxes, claiming that her property has been improved. Marta argues that the greenhouse is not real property. Is it?

E. The greenhouse is an easement and is part of the real property.

C. The greenhouse cannot be part of the real property if Marta does not own the land.

B. The greenhouse is not part of the real property because it could be removed.

D. The greenhouse is a fixture and is part of the real property.

A. The greenhouse is not part of the real property because it was pre-assembled.