Carr v. Deking
765 P.2d 40 (1988), 52 Wn. App. 880 (1988) (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant in common may lease their individual interest in the common property to a third party without the consent of their co-tenants. The lessee effectively steps into the shoes of the leasing co-tenant, and the non-consenting co-tenant's remedy is not to eject the lessee, but to seek partition of the property.
Facts:
- Joel Carr and his father, George Carr, owned a parcel of land as tenants in common.
- From 1974 to 1986, they jointly leased the land to Richard Deking under a year-to-year oral crop-share agreement.
- In 1986, Joel Carr informed Deking that he wanted to switch to a cash rent agreement for the upcoming year.
- In February 1987, Deking bypassed Joel Carr and negotiated directly with George Carr.
- Unbeknownst to Joel Carr, George Carr and Richard Deking executed a written 10-year crop-share lease for the entire property.
- Joel Carr never consented to, authorized, or ratified this new lease.
- In April 1987, Joel Carr gave notice to Deking that his tenancy would terminate at the end of the crop year.
- Deking responded that he intended to retain possession of the land under the 10-year lease he had signed with George Carr.
Procedural Posture:
- Joel Carr filed an action in the trial court against Richard Deking to declare the lease invalid and require Deking to vacate the land.
- Deking moved for summary judgment, arguing a lessee of one tenant in common cannot be ousted by the other.
- Joel Carr filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to terminate the lease.
- The trial court granted Deking's motion for summary judgment, upholding the lease's validity as to all of the land until partition occurs.
- The trial court also ruled that Joel Carr was entitled to one-sixth of the crop as rent but had to reimburse Deking for one-sixth of fertilizer costs.
- Joel Carr (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a tenant in common who refuses to join in a lease executed by the other tenant in common entitled to eject the lessee?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, J.
No. A tenant in common who does not join a lease executed by another co-tenant is not entitled to eject the lessee. It is well-settled law that each tenant in common has the right to use, benefit from, and possess the entire property, subject only to the equal rights of their co-tenants. Therefore, a co-tenant like George Carr may lawfully lease his own interest in the common property to another without the consent of the other tenant, Joel Carr. The lessee, Deking, 'steps into the shoes' of the leasing co-tenant and becomes a tenant in common with Joel Carr for the duration of the lease. A non-joining tenant may not demand exclusive possession as against the lessee but may only demand to be let into co-possession. The proper remedy for a non-consenting co-tenant like Joel Carr is not ejectment, but an action for partition, which would physically divide the property or force its sale and a division of the proceeds.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental principles of tenancies in common, clarifying that a lease by one co-tenant is not void but is valid as to that co-tenant's interest. It establishes that a lessee of one co-tenant gains the possessory rights of that co-tenant, becoming a temporary tenant in common with the non-consenting owners. The ruling limits the remedies available to a non-consenting co-tenant, pushing them towards the more orderly legal process of partition rather than the disruptive remedy of ejectment, thereby providing a measure of stability for lessees.
Unlock the full brief for Carr v. Deking