Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: business lease agreements

Probably not, but more facts would necessary to know for sure (like . . . was he signing only in his individual capacity?). Call the landlord and explain what happened. Ask if the landlord will void the lease (and return the security deposit). If so, great (ask them to put it in writing to ease the mind of the spouse).

Otherwise, you may have to consult with a lawyer to know what's what.

Re: business lease agreements

I disagree with the previous answer. Death of the tenant does not terminate a lease for a definite term.

While a month-to-month or other such indefinite rental would be terminated by notice to the landlord of the tenant's death, and the tewrmination would be effective as of the end of the last day of the last month the tenant paid for during his lifetime, this is not the case wirh leases for a definite term, such as one-year or multiple-year leases. Such leases become an obligation of the estate.

See Civil Code section 1934, which reads: "If the hiring of a thing is terminable at the pleasure of one of the parties, it is terminated by notice to the other of his death or incapacity to contract. In other cases it is not terminated thereby."

Cases applying and interpreting this section against executors and estates include Shepperd v. Tyler (1891) 92 Cal. 552; Southern Pacific Co. v. Swanson (1925) 73 Cal.App. 229; and Joost v. Castel (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 229.

The California law in this respect seems to differ from English common law, where there are famous cases holding that a contract (such as a lease) can become voidable by a party upon the unexpected failure of the purpose for which that party entered into the contract. In the "Coronation Cases," an English court held that, where defendant had rented a suite of rooms with views of Pall Mall in order to give a party for himself and friends with a superb view of the coronation of King Edward VII, and the coronation was postponed due to Edward's illness, the parties' purpose in contracting was frustrated and defendant would not be held to pay the unusually high rent agreed upon. (See Krell v. Henry in Wikipedia).