## Facts

- Husband and wife owned 60 acres of walnut land in Orange County, California, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- A third party negotiated to lease a small portion along Highway 101 to build and operate a boxing pavilion.
- The wife consistently objected and refused to sign any lease; the lessee knew she would not consent.
- The husband alone executed an option and multiple leases to the lessee covering portions of the jointly held land.
- The lessee entered into possession, removed walnut trees on the leased parcels, and constructed a boxing pavilion and related improvements.
- The wife alleged she received no rent and that the lessee held exclusive possession of the leased area, excluding her.
- The wife sued to cancel the leases as invalid due to her nonparticipation as a joint tenant.

## Issues

1. Whether a joint tenant who did not join in leases executed by the other joint tenant may maintain an action to cancel those leases when the lessee is in exclusive possession of the leased portion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s nonsuit for defendants.
- A lease executed by one joint tenant is valid to the extent of that joint tenant’s interest and does not, by itself, justify cancellation at the request of the nonconsenting joint tenant.
- The nonconsenting joint tenant’s rights in the joint estate are not destroyed; her remedies lie in asserting possessory rights and seeking an accounting, not rescission of the leases.

## Legal Principles

- Joint tenancy includes unity of possession: each joint tenant holds an undivided interest with an equal right to possess the whole.
- A joint tenant may convey or lease an interest no greater than the joint tenant’s own rights; such a transaction is effective as to the grantor’s interest.
- An act by one joint tenant cannot bind or prejudicially affect the other joint tenant’s rights, but it is not void merely because the other joint tenant did not consent.
- A nonconsenting joint tenant generally cannot cancel a third-party lease made by a cotenant; the proper relief is to seek joint possession and, where appropriate, an accounting for rents received from third parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that a unilateral lease by one joint tenant remains effective as to the lessor’s interest and does not authorize the other joint tenant to cancel the lease; the nonconsenting joint tenant must pursue possessory and accounting remedies to protect her rights.


Swartzbaugh v. Sampson, 11 Cal. App. 2d 451, 54 P.2d 73 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)