## Facts

- Joel Carr and his father, George Carr, owned farmland in Washington as tenants in common.
- From 1974 to 1986, the land was leased to Richard Deking under a year-to-year oral crop-share arrangement.
- In 1986 and early 1987, Joel sought to change the arrangement to cash rent; Deking was unwilling.
- Without Joel’s consent, George and Deking executed a written 10-year crop-share lease in February 1987.
- Joel did not authorize or ratify the written lease and gave notice purporting to terminate Deking’s tenancy at the end of the 1987 crop year.
- Deking refused to vacate, claiming a right to possess under the written lease with George.
- Joel sued for a declaration that no valid lease existed and for relief requiring Deking to vacate.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenant in common who did not join in, authorize, or ratify a lease made by a cotenant may eject the lessee from the commonly owned property.
2. Whether allegations regarding the leasing cotenant’s mental capacity, and a requested continuance to obtain additional evidence, precluded summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Deking.
- A cotenant may lease his own undivided interest without the other cotenant’s consent.
- The nonjoining cotenant has no right to eject the lessee; the lessee occupies in the leasing cotenant’s place and may possess under the lease until partition.
- The asserted mental-capacity dispute and the request for a continuance did not defeat summary judgment because they were not material to Joel’s ejectment theory, and the continuance request lacked adequate justification.

## Legal Principles

- Each tenant in common has an equal right to possess and use the entire property, subject to the equal rights of the other cotenants.
- A cotenant may transfer or lease his possessory rights in the common property to a third party without the consent of other cotenants.
- A nonconsenting cotenant is not entitled to exclusive possession against the lessee and cannot maintain ejectment based solely on nonjoinder in the lease.
- The lessee stands in the shoes of the leasing cotenant and may remain in possession under the lease until partition or other appropriate cotenancy remedies resolve the dispute.
- In summary judgment practice, a continuance to obtain additional affidavits requires a showing of good reason the evidence could not have been obtained earlier and materiality to the dispositive issue.

## Conclusion

The court held that one cotenant’s long-term lease is effective as to that cotenant’s undivided interest without the other cotenant’s consent, and the nonjoining cotenant cannot eject the lessee; the appropriate remedies lie in partition or other cotenancy-based relief rather than exclusion of the lessee.


Carr v. Deking, 52 Wash. App. 880, 765 P.2d 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988)