Tenhet v. Boswell

Supreme Court of California · 1976 · Property

554 P.2d 330 (1976)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyJoint tenancyLeasesRight of survivorshipSeveranceleasesurvivorshipfour unities

Facts

Plaintiff Hazel Tenhet and Raymond Johnson owned property as joint tenants. Without plaintiff's knowledge or consent, Johnson leased the property to defendant Boswell for 10 years at $150 per year and included an option to purchase. Johnson died about three months after executing the lease. Plaintiff, as surviving joint tenant, claimed sole possession and sought to invalidate the lease after Boswell refused to vacate.

Issue

Does a lease by one joint tenant to a third party sever the joint tenancy, and if not, does the lease remain enforceable against the surviving joint tenant after the lessor joint tenant dies? Put differently, does the surviving joint tenant take the property subject to or free of the lease?

Rule

A joint tenancy may be severed by conduct that clearly and unambiguously indicates an intent to terminate the estate, such as a conveyance of the tenant's entire interest or partition. A lease by one joint tenant is not so inherently inconsistent with joint tenancy as to sever it, and because the lease is valid only to the extent of the lessor's interest, it expires when the lessor joint tenant dies and the survivor takes unencumbered by the lease.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Flores and Owen Pike own a duplex in Sacramento as joint tenants. Without Nina's consent, Owen signs a three-year residential lease giving Tara Long possession of the entire duplex, and Owen remains alive throughout the full lease term.

What is the strongest conclusion about the effect of Owen's lease on the estate while the lease is in force?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a lease by one joint tenant is valid only to the extent of that lessor's interest, but it is not a sufficiently clear and unambiguous act of termination to sever the joint tenancy. The court rejected both permanent-severance and temporary-severance theories for an ordinary lease. Thus, while Owen lives, the joint tenancy remains intact even though the lease is valid as to Owen's interest.