Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.

Facts

The defendants held a life estate in a piece of land. A life tenant may use the land during his life, and the owner of the future estate (a reversioner or remainderman) takes it afterward. On the land stood a large dwelling house that had been expensive to build. The life tenant destroyed the house and graded the ground down so the property could serve business purposes. The plaintiffs sued for waste, meaning a lasting injury a tenant does to the land that harms the owner of the future estate. Wisconsin statutes allow an action for waste and the recovery of double damages, but they do not define waste. The evidence showed that the growth and development of a great city had made the property valueless as residence property. Business and manufacturing interests advanced around the once elegant mansion until it stood isolated, on just enough ground to support it, surrounded by factories and railway tracks. It was absolutely undesirable as a residence and incapable of any use as business property. The tenant did not cause that change. The case involved no contract relations: nothing bound the life tenant to use the property for a specified purpose or to return it in the condition in which he received it.

Issues

1. Does a life tenant commit waste by destroying a large dwelling house and grading the ground for business use, when a radical and permanent change in the surroundings has taken away the property's value as residence property?
2. When the life tenant is not bound by contract to restore the property and a complete and permanent change in surroundings has deprived it of its value and usefulness as previously used, is the question whether his changes were waste one of fact, to be decided by the jury or by the trial court?

Holding

Where a complete and permanent change in surrounding conditions has deprived the property of its value and usefulness as previously used, whether a life tenant not bound by contract to restore it committed waste by making changes needed to make it useful is a question of fact. The court approved the trial court's treating the change as controlling.