A relationship between two or more parties who hold continuing, simultaneous interests in the same parcel of land.
See Our Sources· 5 sources
Restatements
How its tested
Common Examples
4
Landlord Tenant Lease Assignment
Republic Resource leased industrial property to Northern Conservation under a lease requiring ongoing maintenance of monitoring wells. Northern Conservation assigned its entire leasehold to View Nature. View Nature took possession and began operating the site. The assignment transferred the leasehold estate while Republic Resource retained the reversion, creating mutual privity of estate between Republic Resource and View Nature with respect to the leased parcel.
Assignee Bound by Lease Covenant
Lucy leased rooftop space to United Wireless under a lease requiring periodic equipment upgrades. United assigned the leasehold to Allied Wireless, which expressly assumed all tenant duties. Allied later assigned to Swift Wireless. The original lease created a continuing simultaneous interest between Lucy as landlord and each successive tenant holding the leasehold, so mutual privity of estate existed between Lucy and Allied throughout Allied's possession.
Benefit Running After Transfer
Birch Lab leased laboratory space to Royal Pharmaceuticals under a lease requiring maintenance of specialized ventilation systems. Royal assigned the entire leasehold to Oak Bio. The assignment placed Oak Bio in simultaneous possession of the leasehold while Birch Lab retained the reversionary interest, establishing mutual privity of estate between Birch Lab and Oak Bio over the leased building.
Contemporaneous Leasehold Interests
Metro Holdings leased warehouse space to Apex Storage under a lease requiring structural repairs. Apex assigned its entire leasehold to Summit Logistics while Metro retained the reversion. Summit took possession and performed the repairs. The simultaneous continuing interests of Metro in the reversion and Summit in the leasehold created mutual privity of estate between them for the leased parcel.
Howard v. Kunto2 Wash. App. 348, 469 P.2d 990
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated.
Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements.
The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos.
In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year.
The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
5 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What distinguishes mutual privity of estate from successive privity of estate?
Mutual privity of estate exists when parties hold continuing simultaneous interests in the same land, such as a landlord's reversion and a tenant's leasehold. Successive privity arises only when one party transfers its entire interest to another, ending the first party's relationship with the land.
Does mutual privity of estate alone make a transferee liable for lease covenants?
Mutual privity of estate supplies one required element for a transferee's liability under Restatement (Second) of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 16.1(2), but the promise must also touch and concern the land, the parties must intend the burden to run, and the transferee must not be relieved of the duty.
When does an assignment terminate the original tenant's mutual privity of estate with the landlord?
An assignment of the entire leasehold ends the original tenant's privity of estate with the landlord because the original tenant no longer holds any simultaneous interest in the leased parcel. Contractual liability may survive if the obligation rests on privity of contract rather than estate privity alone.
Can mutual privity of estate support tacking in adverse possession?
No. Mutual privity of estate requires continuing simultaneous interests such as those between landlord and tenant. Successive adverse occupants hold consecutive rather than simultaneous interests, so the doctrine does not apply.
Supporting sources
Does a landlord's consent to assignment automatically end mutual privity of estate for the original tenant?
No. Consent to assignment ends the original tenant's estate privity once the entire leasehold transfers, but the landlord must expressly relieve the original tenant of contractual duties for those obligations to terminate.
of contract between them still remains and is unaffected. Neither the
privity of estate
or contract between the lessor and…
” between the promisee or party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the right to enforce it, and the promisor or party who rests under the burden of the covenant. (Clark on Covenants…