Court Opinion

ID: 9660569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:16:13.832488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.683017
License: Public Domain

*840Mulroney, J.
(dissenting in part) — I concur with. Divisions I and II and that part of Division III that holds the pleaded Agreement with Hans Jurgensen would be ineffective to give plaintiff a right to possession of the premises. I do not agree with the holding in Division III that the allegation in the petition that Goldie Jurgensen told her to remain in possession amounted to an allegation that she was a tenant at will of Goldie Jurgensen. It was essential to her action for damages for wrongful eviction that she plead she was a tenant of Goldie Jurgensen. 52 C. J. S., Landlord and Tenant, section 460, page 182; Caldwell v. Gem Packing Co., 52 Cal.’App. 2d 80, 125 P.2d 901. She pleaded she was in possession with permission of the owner, and the majority hold this is sufficient because under section 562.4, Code, 1950, one in possession with the assent of the owner is “presumed” to be a tenant at will. The Code section is a statutory rule of proof, not pleading. It gives one in possession with the owner’s assent the assistance of a presumption when proving tenancy but it does not relieve one suing on the basis of tenancy from alleging that fact.
It is not necessary to decide whether the petition would be sufficient as alleging a cause of action because of the manner and circumstances of her eviction. I merely disagree with the conclusion that the pleaded status of the plaintiff at the time of the eviction was that of a tenant-at-will of Goldie Jurgensen.