§ 9.3 - Interests in Crops

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§9.3 INTERESTS IN CROPS

Washington courts generally have adhered to the rule that ownership of unsevered crops belongs to the owner of the land. However, courts may have difficulty applying the rule because of the different interests that may exist in land at any one time. This section discusses the various interests in any one crop that may exist as a result of fee ownership, leases, and crop shares, and the effect of transfers of crops in those contexts.

(1) Fee ownership

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that crops, whether or not mature, are the property of the owner of the land unless there has been an actual or constructive severance of the crops. In re Estate of Niehenke, 117 Wn.2d 631, 818 P.2d 1324 (1991).

Conversely, the Washington Supreme Court generally has held that a landowner is not entitled to crops that were grown on the land but severed while the landowner was out of possession. Pac. Fruit & Produce Co. v. Fruit Prod. Co., 184 Wash. 571, 52 P.2d 311 (1935) (fruit); Snyder v. Harding, 38 Wash. 666, 80 P. 789 (1905) (wheat). In Pacific Fruit, the court stated that it was immaterial whether the landowner was rightfully or wrongfully dispossessed. Even without actual severance, the land may belong to one person and the crops to another. Lynch v. Sprague Roller Mills, 51 Wash. 535, 99 P. 578 (1909) (wheat). Severance may be constructively effected by a bill of sale or contract.

KIRBY V. FIRST NAT'L BANK, 136 Wash. 214, 239 P. 556 (1925). A deed transferring land to a grantee with notice of an earlier bill of sale of the wheat crop growing on the land did not convey title to that crop.

RUDY-PATRICK CO. V. DELA COSTA FARMING CO., 16 Wn.App. 911, 557 P.2d 869 (1976). A seed bailment contract was held to have created a constructive severance of the alfalfa seed crop from the land against subsequent transferees of the land with notice of the contract.

HAYNES V. PIERSON, 176 Wash. 611, 30 P.2d 644 (1934). What appeared to be a seed-bailment contract did not cause a severance of the crop from the land as far as the rights of a crop-share landlord were concerned. The crop-share rental had been fixed by oral agreement of the landlord and tenant before the tenant entered into the seed-bailment agreement with the seed supplier. The court held that the seed supplier's rights could attach only to the tenant's interest in the crop and were necessarily subject to the landlord's statutory right to a lien upon the entire crop or a sufficient part thereof to satisfy the landlord's claims.

Even without a severance, a landowner's right to unsevered crops may be limited. Tenants in possession in good faith and under a claim of right, and holding adversely to all others, are entitled to crops grown by them regardless of whether the crops have been severed. 21A AM. JUR. 2D Crops §25 (2008).

KOENIG V. HANSEN, 39 Wn.2d 506, 236 P.2d 771 (1951). When a crop-share tenant was sent to prison, the landlord retook possession of the leased premises. The court found that the tenant had not abandoned the premises and that the landlord's possession was to protect the tenant's interest as well as that of the landlord. The tenant was held entitled to his crop share less the cost of harvest incurred by the landlord.

(a) Tenants in common

Crops grown on land owned by tenants in common are the common property of the co-owners and cannot be disposed of without each owner's authority. Reinhart v. Centennial Flouring Mills Co., 6 Wn.2d 620, 108 P.2d 377 (1940). Other authorities suggest that when one of the co-owners raises and harvests the crop, it belongs to the owner without any need to account to other owners unless they have been ousted or excluded. They also suggest that, in certain cases, if the crop is held by tenants in common, any tenant may sever and take or mortgage that tenant's share without the consent of the other(s). In such cases, the crop must be severable and of uniform quality, and it must be possible to determine each share by measurement or weight. 21A AM. JUR. 2D Crops §9 (2008).

(b) Trespassers and dispossessors

A landowner is entitled to crops grown by those wrongfully in possession of the land as long as the crops remain unsevered. Short v. Short, 180 Wash. 514, 40 P.2d 752 (1935) (potatoes); Fuglede v. Wenatchee Dist. Coop. Ass'n, 134 Wash. 350, 235 P. 790 (1925) (dicta, fruit); cf. P. Fruit & Produce Co., 184 Wash. 571 (dispossessed landowner not entitled to severed crops).

The occupant of land, whether a tenant in possession or holding adversely, is the owner of all crops harvested during occupancy. Loudon v. Cooper, 3 Wn.2d 229, 100 P.2d 42 (1940) (apples); Lynch, 51 Wash. 535 (wheat). The right of the occupant to the harvested crop depends on actual possession of the land, not upon any right to possession or ownership of the land. Fuglede, 134 Wash. at 356. Contra, Plaza Farmer's Union Warehouse & Elevator Co. v. Tomlinson, 183 Wash. 617, 49 P.2d 36 (1935) (the occupant was not entitled to a crop raised by him while he was in possession under a judgment in an ejectment action, when the judgment dispossessing the landowner was subsequently reversed; by statute, the landowner was entitled to the crops severed while he was kept from possession under the lower court judgment). When the occupant of the land takes the crops, the wrongfully dispossessed landowner may recover the reasonable value of the use of the land and for waste. Fuglede, 134...