8. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court 104 Wis. 7 (1899)
FACTS
Charles T. Memls, who was the owner of the real estate and a brewery in question, died in 1869. After his decease, both brewery and homestead were sold and conveyed to Pabst Brewing Co. (Defendant). The general character of the real estate changed rapidly, and it became undesirable and unprofitable as residence property. Defendant removed the building and graded down the property to the level of the street in order to use the property as business purpose. Reversioner(Plaintiff) sought the right of the property and the court held that the brewing company only acquired Mrs.Melm’s life estate in the homestead, and that the plaintiffs are the owners of the fee, subject to such life estate. Plaintiff now argues that this construction constitutes waste. The trial court dismissed the complaint and plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the alteration of the owner of life estate because of the radical change in surrounding and it devalued the premises significantly was the waste and he is obligated to return the property in original condition.
RULE
Definition of waste: Bandlow v. Thieme, 53 Wis. 57
It may be defined to be any act or commission of duty by a tenant of land which does a lasting injury to the freehold, tends to the permanent loss of the owner of the fee, or to destroy or lessen the value of the inheritance, or to destroy the identity of the property, or impair the evidence of title.
Brook v. Dole, 66 Wis. 142
Any material change in the nature and character of the building made by the tenant is waste, although the value of the property should be enhanced the alteration.
Sherrill v. Connor
In the absence of any contract, express or implied, to use the property for a specified purpose, or to return it in the same condition in which it was received, a radical and permanent change of surrounding conditions, such as is presented in case before us, must always be an important, and sometimes a controlling, consideration upon the question whether a physical change in the use or the buildings constitutes waste.
APPLICATION
Defendants contends that the property became valueless for the purpose of residence property as the result of the growth and development of a great city. In 1891 and 1892, Defendants removed the building and graded down the property to about the level of the street for the use of business because it became useless as a residence property.
According to definition of a waste in Bandlow v. Thieme, 53 Wis. 57, the change of the property in question would constitute waste under ordinary circumstances. Its alteration is a material change of the property which is considered as a waste regardless of the value of the property Brook v. Dole, 66 Wis. 142.
However, Brook v. Dole, 66 Wis. 142. is not applicable because the principal was to protect parties for short term lease. Here is no contract between landlord and tenant, thus as the owner of life tenant, their right may continue for many years. And owner of life estate is not bound by contract to restore the property by the same condition. The Court applies the Sherrill v. Connor where radical and permanent change of surrounding conditions were controlling to decide whether a physical change in the use of the buildings constitutes waste regard the unsuitable barns and buildings built before Civil War.
In this case, there has occurred a complete and permanent change of surrounding conditions which has deprive the property of its value and usefulness as previously used.
CONCLUSION
No, the judgment of the trial court affirmed.
NOTE
원고와 피고 사이에 임대차계약이 있는지 파악하기 위해서 reversioner 의 의미를 정확하게 알아야했습니다.
원고는 문제의 부동산을 유산으로 물려받은 자손들로서 피고와 직접적으로 계약을 나눈 적이 없고, 계약서가 없는 상황에서 대저택에 손상을 입힌 행위가 임차인이 건물을 그대로 돌려줘야하는 general rule 에 위배되어 피고가 손해배상의 책임이 있는지 따져보는 케이스였습니다.
법원은, 계약서가 어떤 형태로도 없는 경우에 일반적으로 임차인에게 요구되는 same condition 으로 반환하는 의무와 주변 상황에 따라 임대한 건물에 변화를 주는 것이 어느정도 인정된다는 것 중에서 후자에 더 힘을 실어주었습니다. 여기서 법원이 중요하게 생각한 것은 , (1)계약서의 유무 (2)주변상황 변화에 따른 건물의 가치입니다.
*Civil War 1861 - 남북전쟁
Definition of Reversioner
Fee simple
Owner of life estate
*만약 contract 가 있었다면 ?
condition 이 인정되지 않고 싸울 필요가 없다.