Swartzbaugh v. Sampson
11 Cal. App. 2d 451 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lease of joint tenancy property by one joint tenant without the consent of the other is not void; it is valid as to the leasing tenant's interest and gives the lessee the same right of possession that the lessor-tenant had. The non-consenting joint tenant cannot cancel the lease but is entitled to be let into joint possession or to an accounting for their share of the profits.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Swartzbaugh and her husband, defendant Swartzbaugh, owned 60 acres of land in Orange County as joint tenants.
- Defendant Sampson began negotiations with Mr. Swartzbaugh to lease a portion of this land for a boxing pavilion.
- Plaintiff Swartzbaugh consistently objected to leasing the land to Sampson, and Sampson was fully aware of her objections.
- In early 1934, Mr. Swartzbaugh and Sampson executed two leases for portions of the property without Mrs. Swartzbaugh's signature or consent.
- Sampson took possession of the leased premises, removed walnut trees, erected a boxing pavilion, and placed other improvements on the property.
- Sampson occupied the leased property to the exclusion of Plaintiff Swartzbaugh, who received no portion of the rental income.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Swartzbaugh filed an action in the trial court to cancel two leases executed by her husband and Sam A. Sampson.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for nonsuit, dismissing the plaintiff's action.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a joint tenant who did not consent to a lease executed by her co-tenant cancel that lease where the lessee is in exclusive possession of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Marks, J.
No. A joint tenant who has not joined in a lease cannot maintain an action to cancel it where the lessee is in exclusive possession. One of the essential unities of a joint tenancy is possession, which means each joint tenant has an equal right to possess the whole property. Therefore, one joint tenant can convey their right of possession to a lessee, who then stands in the shoes of the lessor. The lease is not a nullity but a valid contract as to the lessor's interest. The rights of the non-consenting co-tenant are not extinguished; their remedy is not cancellation, but to be let into joint possession with the lessee or to demand an accounting for their share of the rents and profits collected from the lessee.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the rights of co-tenants and third parties in transactions involving jointly owned property. It establishes that a unilateral lease by one joint tenant is not void, thereby protecting the lessee's right of possession derived from the leasing co-tenant. The case affirms that while one co-tenant cannot prejudice the rights of another, the proper remedy for the non-consenting co-tenant is to share in the benefits (possession or profits) rather than to invalidate the underlying transaction. This preserves the stability of commercial transactions while upholding the property rights of all co-tenants through remedies like partition and accounting.
Unlock the full brief for Swartzbaugh v. Sampson