- 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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011