Yes, the renter has to leave. The court explained that renting the property didn't break the special joint ownership between Hazel and Raymond because renting isn't a clear enough signal that one of them wanted to end the arrangement. Because their ownership was still intact, when Raymond died, his share of the property automatically vanished and Hazel became the 100% owner. Mr. Boswell's rental agreement was tied only to Raymond's share, so when Raymond's share disappeared, the rental agreement disappeared with it.

No, renting out the property doesn't change the joint ownership and the rental agreement ends when the owner who rented it out dies. Joint ownership can only be changed by clear actions or words showing that one of the owners wants to end it, like selling their share or going to court to divide the property. Renting the property doesn't change the key parts of joint ownership. When the owner who rented out the property dies, the rental agreement can't be enforced against the other owner, who gets the property without any limits from the rental agreement. The right to get full ownership when the other owner dies is just a possibility that happens only if the joint ownership wasn't ended before the death.

We answer no: renting out the property does not change the joint ownership, and the rental agreement ends when the owner who rented it out dies. Joint ownership can only be changed by clear actions or words showing that one of the owners wants to end it, like selling their share or going to court to divide the property. Renting the property does not change the key parts of joint ownership. When the owner who rented out the property dies, the rental agreement cannot be enforced against the other owner, who gets the property without any limits from the rental agreement. The right to get full ownership when the other owner dies is just a possibility that happens only if the joint ownership was not ended before the death.

This "right" is a mere expectancy that arises "only upon success in the ultimate gamble—survival—and then only if the unity of the estate has not theretofore been destroyed by voluntary conveyance..., by partition proceedings..., by involuntary alienation under an execution..., or by any other action which operates to sever the joint tenancy

Under the common law, four unities were essential to the creation and existence of an estate in joint tenancy: interest, time, title and possession

—when a joint tenant leases his interest to a third person for a term of years, and dies during that term, the lease does not sever the joint tenancy, but expires upon the death of the lessor.

We have discretion to amend a judgment to preserve appellate jurisdiction when " `the trial court's failure to dispose of all causes of action results from inadvertence or mistake rather than an intention to retain the remaining causes of action for trial

Under the one final judgment rule, "an appeal may be taken only from the final judgment in an entire action

Thus, a lease by a joint tenant of his interest for a term of years, although obviously destroying the unities of interest and possession has been held not to sever the joint tenancy relationship.

"[F] our unities are essential to an estate in joint tenancy: unity of interest, unity of time, unity of title, and unity of possession.[Citations.][¶] The requirement of four unities reflects the basic concept that there is but one estate which is taken jointly; if an essential unity is destroyed the joint tenancy is severed and a tenancy in common results.[Citations

The parties also agree that this court has the authority to order amendment of an appealed-from judgment to make it constitute a final appealable judgment

—neither temporary nor permanent severance; when lessor died, lease terminated and lessee's interest also terminated

—may, during his lifetime, grant certain rights in the joint property without severing the tenancy. But when such a joint tenant dies his interest dies with him, and any encumbrances placed by him on the property become unenforceable against the surviving joint tenant....[¶] Any other result would defeat the justifiable expectations of the surviving joint tenant. Thus, if A agrees …

No, a lease executed by one joint tenant neither severs the joint tenancy nor remains enforceable against the surviving joint tenant. First, a joint tenancy may only be severed by an act that clearly and unambiguously establishes an intent to terminate the estate. Because a lease is a temporary conveyance of possession and less than a complete transfer of ownership interest, it is not so inherently inconsistent with joint tenancy as to cause a severance, especially when other clear methods like conveyance of the entire interest or partition are available. Second, upon the death of the lessor joint tenant, their interest in the property extinguishes. As a lease is an encumbrance valid only to the extent of the lessor's interest, the lease expires with the interest to which it was attached. This preserves the right of survivorship, which is the defining characteristic of a joint tenancy, ensuring the surviving joint tenant takes the property unencumbered as they justifiably expected.

No, the lease does not sever the joint tenancy and expires upon the death of the lessor joint tenant because the joint tenancy can only be severed by express intent or unambiguous actions that indicate a desire to terminate the estate, such as a conveyance of the entire interest or a partition action. A lease, which is valid only during the lifetime of the lessor joint tenant, does not destroy the essential unities of the joint tenancy: interest, time, title, and possession. Upon the death of the lessor joint tenant, the lease becomes unenforceable against the surviving joint tenant, and the property passes unencumbered by the lease. The right of survivorship is a mere expectancy that arises only upon survival and if the unity of the estate has not been destroyed by actions that sever the joint tenancy.

Tenhet v. Boswell

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot