- 6 -
(1947). Neither party disputes that FNF's holdover created a
tenancy at will.
Under section 1019 of the California Civil Code, a tenant
may remove his trade fixtures only "during the continuance of his
term". We endeavor to interpret this phrase as a California
court would. See Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456,
465 (1967). We must determine whether "the continuance of his
term" refers only to the original 10-year term or whether it also
includes FNF's holdover period.
In Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne, 14 Cal. 59 (1859), a
case decided prior to the enactment of section 1019 of the
California Civil Code, the California Supreme Court held that a
tenant's renewal of his lease constituted a new tenancy, and the
tenant's right to remove trade fixtures was lost upon his
renewal. The court reasoned that upon the commencement of the
new lease, the tenant was "in the same situation as if the
landlord, being seized of the land, had leased both land and
fixtures to him." Id. at 71. In Wadman v. Burke, 147 Cal. 351,
353-354 (1905), a case decided after the enactment of section
1019 of the California Civil Code, the California Supreme Court
held:
Unless there is some understanding, * * * between the
lessor and the lessee in the second lease, at the time
it was executed, as to the fixtures, the rule of law is
* * * that the tenant entitled to remove trade
fixtures, must avail himself of that right before the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011