PropertyJoint tenancyLeasesCotenant possessionjoint tenancycotenantlease by one joint tenantunity of possession
Facts
Plaintiff and her husband, defendant Swartzbaugh, owned sixty acres of walnut land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Sampson negotiated for leases on a small portion of the land for a boxing pavilion, and plaintiff consistently objected and did not sign the option or either lease, which were signed only by her husband and Sampson. Sampson knew plaintiff would not join, removed walnut trees, took possession, and erected the pavilion and other improvements. Plaintiff received none of the rent, and Sampson was in possession of the leased area to her exclusion when she sued to cancel the leases.
Issue
Can a joint tenant who did not join in leases executed by her cotenant maintain an action to cancel those leases when the lessee is in exclusive possession of the leased property?
Rule
One joint tenant may lease joint property, but the lease binds only that joint tenant's share and is valid to that extent. Such a lease is not a nullity; it gives the lessee the same right to possession that the lessor joint tenant had, and a nonjoining joint tenant is entitled at most to joint possession of her moiety, not cancellation of the lease or exclusive possession of the whole, absent prejudice beyond the lessor's transferable possessory rights.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Lena Ortiz and Drew Ortiz own a peach orchard outside Fresno as joint tenants. Without Lena's consent, Drew signs a four-year lease of the entire orchard to Valley Crest Produce, which enters and begins farming the land; Lena sues only to cancel the lease because she never signed it.
How should the court rule?
Explanation. The majority rule here is that one joint tenant may lease the joint property, but the lease binds only the lessor joint tenant's share. It is not a nullity. The lessee receives the same right of possession the lessor had, and the nonjoining joint tenant cannot simply cancel the lease merely because she did not consent. Her rights remain intact to the extent they are not prejudiced beyond the lessor's transferable possessory interest. (Derived from Swartzbaugh v. Sampson (n.d.).)