Definition of Tenant
Case Law

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT: Landlord seeks payment from tenant's wife Was rent a "family" necessity'?

FACTS: Entel leased an apartment from Becker Pacific Management Agency Inc. (which later became Wieber Pacific Management Inc.) in March 1988. The written lease, which expired in August, stated the apartment would be occupied only "by Tenants with the ability to contract whose signatures are affixed hereto, consisting of one adult and no children..." Occupancy by other people was a breach of the lease.

Entel got married in June, and his wife, Snyder-Entel, moved in. Beginning in early August, the landlord sent three notices addressed to Entel giving him the option of vacating the apartment or extending the lease for a year with the same terms and conditions. Entel signed the lease extension.

While they lived there, Snyder-Entel wrote the rent checks from their joint account and occasionally complained to the landlord about maintenance problems.

In October, Snyder-Entel sent the landlord notice of their intent to move out by month's end. The landlord sent Entel a bill in November for $3,770 for cleaning expenses and rent for the rest of the lease term. Snyder-Entel responded, denying liability. In 1989, the landlord assigned the debt to Sunkidd Venture Inc. for collection. The couple separated in 1992 and was divorced in 1993.

Sunkidd sued Snyder-Entel (but not Entel) for abandoning the lease, seeking $1,444 in damages (because the landlord rented the apartment two months after the couple left). Even though Snyder-Entel didn't sign the lease, Sunkidd argued she was liable for two reasons: she acquiesced in the transaction and the debt was a "family expense."

A debt incurred by either spouse was a community debt, which could collected from community property or from the individual property of the spouse that incurred the debt. If the debt arose from "family expenses," however, it could be collected from either spouse's separate property.

Snyder-Entel asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing she wasn't liable because she wasn't a party to the lease and didn't have any duty to pay her ex-husband's debts.

The judge dismissed the case, ruling Snyder-Entel wasn't liable under the lease because she didn't sign it. The judge said the rent wasn't a "family expense"-,limited to urgent, immediate needs, like medical bills.

On appeal, the court affirmed, and Sunkidd appealed again.

DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court.

The trial court was wrong to dismiss the case, so it had to go back for further proceedings.

When Entel signed the lease extension, he was acting to ensure housing for his family, so the debt was a family expense. Family expenses were those incurred for the family's sustenance, support, and ordinary requirements. Rental of the family residence was a recognized family expense that subjected spouses to both community and separate liability.

Although the marriage had ended, Sunkidd had a right to sue either spouse (or both) to recover payment for the lease obligation.