Opinion ID: 2161892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Recording Required?

Text: The first issue presented on this appeal is whether the denominated lease between Wilson and Pan American was required to be recorded. More specifically, the issue can be stated: Is the agreement entered into by J. D. Wilson Company, Inc., and Pan American Motel, Inc., on October 26, 1959, a true lease or is it a conditional sales contract or a chattel mortgage in the form of a lease? The trial court found that the . . . instrument is denominated by its own terms as a lease, the parties are referred to as lessee and lessor, its term is five years, monthly payments are referred to as rentals, that it provided that at the end of the term the lessor may enter and remove all or that part as lessor desires to remove, and that it further provided that such equipment shall remain personal property despite the degree of annexation to the realty. Importantly, the instrument does not contain a provision for the vesting of title in the buyer at any time in the future. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a conditional sales contract. [1] In 1959, a conditional sales contract was defined by sec. 122.01, Stats., as follows: 122.01 Definitions. (1) In this chapter `conditional sale' means (a) Any contract for the sale of goods under which possession is delivered to the buyer and the property in the goods is to vest in the buyer at a subsequent time upon the payment of part or all of the price, or upon the performance of any other condition or the happening of any contingency; or (b) any contract for the bailment or leasing of goods by which the bailee or lessee contracts to pay as compensation a sum substantially equivalent to the value of the goods, and by which it is agreed that the bailee or lessee is bound to become, or has the option of becoming the owner of such goods upon full compliance with the terms of the contract.  (Emphasis added.) Appellant cites Kiefer-Haessler Hardware Co. v. Paulus [2] as a case wherein this court construed a lease of personal property to be a chattel mortgage. However, in that case the last paragraph of the agreement read as follows: `It is also further agreed, that I may at any time within said rental term, purchase said furniture and apparatus, by paying therefor the full valuation above stated and then and in that case only, the rent and guarantee theretofore paid shall be deducted therefrom.' [3] In Paulus this court concluded that [u]nder the circumstances shown by the evidence the intention of the parties is so plain, notwithstanding the formal words appropriate to a lease, that no other construction is permissible. [4] Thus, under the statutes as they existed in 1959 [5] it is clear that the register of deeds of Milwaukee county had no duty or obligation to record the instrument. The demurrers to the alternative cause of action were properly sustained.