Court Opinion

ID: 9639873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:50:31.655091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:22.673685
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
Appellant cites 49 Amer.Jur. p, 625 and 37 C.J.S., Frauds, Statute of, § 114, p. 607, to the effect that rescission of a lease within the Statute- of Frauds must be in writing unless, at the time of rescission, the unexpired term of the lease is less than that required by the statute to be in writing.
Examination of the authorities cited in those texts reveal:
In Pennsylvania, Lawton v. De Angelo, 169 Pa.Super. 380, 82 A.2d 900, it is held *826that a written lease which does not have more than a three year unexpired term may he rescinded by a parol agreement. This decision seems to turn upon statutes of that State not set forth in the opinion and which have not been read.
In West Virginia, Weaver v. Trembly, 126 W.Va. 802, 30 S.E.2d 242, where the law is that a written executory contract for the sale of land may be rescinded by parol if “something [is] done by way of execution of the rescission” it is reasoned that a written lease may be rescinded by parol. The premise of this case is not the law in Texas. Dial v. Crain, 10 Tex. 444.
Wisconsin, in Garrick Theatre Co. v. Grimbel Bros., 158 Wis. 649, 149 N.W. 385, follows the New York construction of a statute identical with its own.
There are several New York cases, the leading one being Smith v. Devlin, 23 N.Y. 363. The lease there was for three years and the suit was for part of the rent for the third year the defense being that the lease for that year had been discharged by agreement. We quote from the opinion:
“The first question presented is, whether this remaining interest for the term of one year can be surrendered by a parol agreement. The statute declares that ‘no estate or interest in lands other than leases for a term not exceeding one year, nor any trust, or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall hereafter be created, granted, assigned, surrendered, or declared, unless by act or operation of law, or by deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.’ (2 R.S., p. 134, Sec. 6.) The statute has reference to the actual estate or interest which is to be surrendered. When it excepts leases for one year, it refers to the estate or interest of the tenant; to his estate for a year; and not to the form of the lease by which that interest or estate is created or secured. In order to secure the true intent and spirit, we must regard this as only a lease for a year. So far as the estate or interest remaining under the lease is concerned, it is a lease but for a year.”
Our statute, Art. 3995, subd. 4, V.A.C.S., provides that “No action shall be brought in any court * * * upon any contract for the sale of real estate or the lease thereof for a longer term than one year”, unless in writing, etc.
It is to be observed that we have no provision regarding the surrender of a lease as does the New York statute and hence it is not material here that we discuss the interpretation placed by New York upon a statute unlike ours.
It is my opinion that our statute requires consideration of the lease involved as an entity and that there is no room under the statute and no legitimate reason for saying that a ten year lease is converted into a one year lease by the lapse of nine years. It might as well be said that a two story house is converted into a one story house by a tornado which carries away the upper story. In the first instance we have what is left of a ten year lease. In the second instance we have what is left of a two story house.
There are many practical reasons for adhering to this construction of the statute. Many lease provisions are applicable only to or during the final year such as: option to renew or buy, increased rents, renovation, repairs, etc. If a lease for years is to be bobtailed so as to delete such important matters by rescission I believe the witnessing agreement should be in writing. Otherwise the intent of our statute is violated and its effectiveness greatly curtailed.
I concur in the Court’s opinion affirming this case.