Opinion ID: 758265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duration of the Sublease

Text: 36 The defendants argue that the sublease did not provide for a definite term and duration of the sublease and thus violated the Statute of Frauds. Manuel Chavez testified at trial that the handwritten document containing the family's recommendation stated, that we [Lorentzen and Manuel Chavez] would rent the lease for five years, pay them $25,000 per month (emphasis added). Manuel Chavez also testified that he understood that the sublease would start on October 1 of 1992, the same day that the Ratner Lease would commence. Further, Manuel Chavez testified that the sublease was to be--reflect what the original lease was, just an assignment. In other words, we would take their position. (emphasis added). Finally, Manuel Chavez was asked, And to your knowledge, did it [the document] cover anything other than the identification of the property at issue, the amount to be paid per month, and the duration of the lease?  (emphasis added). Manuel Chavez responded, No, nothing else. 14 37 We agree with the defendants that the record does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the original memorandum expressly provided for a start date of October 1, 1992 for the sublease. 15 We also agree that a plaintiff must show that a written document creating a lease for longer than one year includes a fixed beginning and ending date in order satisfy the Statute of Frauds under New Mexico law. See Tanney, 178 P.2d at 582. Nevertheless, we do not find that a document creating a sublease expressly must state a beginning and ending date when the document makes clear that the sublease covers the entirety of the term of the original lease and when the original lease is available and includes a clear beginning and ending date. Here, the defendants do not dispute the fact that the Ratner Lease was to begin on October 1, 1992. Manuel Chavez testified that the document stated that the sublease was for a term of five years and that the sublease would cover the entire term of the Ratner Lease. We find such testimony, in conjunction with the substantial amount of corroborating evidence to the effect that the agreement constituted a five-year sublease, sufficient to qualify as clear and convincing evidence that the original memorandum satisfied the Statute of Frauds.