DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 38--------------------------------------------------
       Ernst v. Conditt
       By: SunsetSailor Date: January 27, 2011, 10:26 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       LL says that this is an assignment
       NT says that it is a sublet
       RULES:
       * If the transfer is a sublease, no privity of contract
       exists b/w the complainant and defendant; and therefore, the
       defendant could not be liable to complaints on the covenant to
       pay rent and the expense of the removal of the improvements.
       But if the transfer is an assignment of the lease, privity of
       estate does exists b/w complainants and the defendant; and
       defendant would be liable directly and primarily for the amount
       of the judgment (391)
       * The general rule as to the distinction b/w an assignment
       of a lease and a sublease is an assignment conveys the whole
       term, leaving no interest nor reversionary interest in the
       grantor or assignor.  Whereas, a sublease may be generally
       defined as a transaction whereby a tenant grants an interest in
       the leased premises less than his own, or reserves himself a
       reversionary interest in the term (391)
       * COMMON LAW: (reversionary test)
       1. If the instrument purports to transfer the lessee’s
       estate for the entire remainder of his term it is an assignment,
       regardless of its form or the parties’ intention.  Conversely,
       if the instrument purports to transfer the lessee’s estate for
       less than the entire term—even for a day less—it is a sublease,
       regardless of its form or of the parties’ intention
       * MODERN LAW:
       1. The cardinal rule to be followed in this state, in
       construing deeds and other written instruments, is to ascertain
       the intention of the parties
       * COURT’S OPINION:
       1. The use of the words “sublet” and “subletting” is
       not conclusive of the construction to be placed on the
       instrument in the case; it plainly appearing from the context of
       the instrument and the facts and circumstances surrounding the
       execution of it the parties thereto intended an assignment
       rather than a sublease
       *****************************************************