Opinion
File No. 52909
A lease for more than one year signed by the owner of the premises, though not by the lessee, is enforcible as against the successor in title to such owner, where the lessee was represented on the execution of the lease by an agent who took delivery of the lease and occupied the premises under it, and where the instrument was recorded and the successor in title to the lessor had notice thereof when he took title, and where upon execution of the lease the lessor was paid a sum on account of rent for the last year of the term. A lease is primarily a conveyance of an interest in land. Since the execution of the lease by the lessor may be said to constitute performance on his part, the lease for that reason may be considered a unilateral agreement. The lease was then, executed in compliance with section 5018 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which provides that a lease for more than one year shall be ineffectual against any person other than the lessor unless executed, attested, acknowledged and recorded "in the same manner as a deed of land." Moreover, even though the lease were not executed in accordance with the statute it would be good as between the parties, under the rule set forth in Andretta vs. Fox New England Theatres, Inc., 113 Conn. 476, since the lessor's successor in title had notice of the recording and that was sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry.
MEMORANDUM FILED NOVEMBER 21, 1938.
William J. McKenna, of New Haven, for the Plaintiff.
Maresca Maresca, of New Haven, for the Defendant.
Memorandum of decision in action for declaratory judgment.
The only relief asked in the complaint is for a declaratory judgment. The plaintiff claims an instrument purporting to be a lease executed by a predecessor in title is invalid because the lessee "did not execute said lease or subscribe her name thereto", and asks that it be declared invalid.
The lease was admittedly signed by the then owner of the premises. It does not bear the signature of the lessee. Evidence was introduced that she was not present when it was executed by the lessor but that her husband, who was her agent, represented her in the transaction, took delivery of the lease and occupied the premises under it. It is admitted that the instrument was recorded and the plaintiff had notice of this when he took title. It further appears that upon execution of the lease the lessor was paid $1,000 on account of rent for the last, or fifth year it was to run.
Section 5018 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, provides that a lease for more than one year shall be ineffectual against any person other than the lessor unless executed, attested, acknowledged and recorded in the same manner as a deed of land. A lease is primarily a conveyance of an interest in land. Since the execution of the lease by the lessor may be said to constitute performance on his part, the lease for that reason may be considered a unilateral agreement. In re Eldgewood Part Junior College, Inc., 123 Conn. 74, 77.
It can hardly be said, then, that the lease was not executed in compliance with the statute "in the same manner as a deed of land." It was executed, delivered and a substantial consideration paid.
But even were it not executed in accordance with the statute it would be good as between the parties. If, as the plaintiff claims, the factual situation here is not identical with that in Andretta vs. Fox New England Theatres, Inc., 113 Conn. 476, the rule there applied applies with greater force here, for the plaintiff admittedly had notice of the recording and that was "sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry." Inquiry would have disclosed, what has appeared in evidence, that there was a good lease between the original lessor and the defendant.