- 7 -
expiration of the term of the lease during which they
are affixed. * * *
In Earle v. Kelly, 21 Cal. App. 480, 484 (1913), a
California district court of appeal held, relying on Merritt and
Wadman, that "where the tenant makes a new lease which contains
no stipulation giving him the right to remove fixtures which he
might have removed during the first term, he loses the right to
remove the fixtures." The court further held that when a tenant
renews his original lease or holds over after the expiration of
his lease and the landlord accepts rent from him, his renewal or
holdover creates a new tenancy, and the tenant loses his right to
remove trade fixtures. See id. at 484-485. Since Earle, other
California district courts of appeal have held that a holdover
tenancy is treated as a new lease and not as an extension of the
original lease. See Staudigl v. Harper, 76 Cal. App. 2d 439, 451
(1946); Kaye v. M'Divani, 6 Cal. App. 2d 132, 134 (1935).
Petitioner argues that FNF's holdover should be treated as
an extension of its original term and not a new tenancy.
Petitioner cites two California district courts of appeal
decisions, Woods v. Bank of Haywards, 10 Cal. App. 93 (1909), and
Knox v. Wolfe, 73 Cal. App. 2d 494 (1946), as support for his
proposition.
In Woods, the tenant held over, with the landlord's consent,
under the same terms as the original tenancy except the rent was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011