Cole v. Steinlauf
144 Conn. 629 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A title is unmarketable if a defect in the chain of title, such as the omission of required words of inheritance, creates a reasonable doubt that would expose the purchaser to the hazard of future litigation to prove its validity.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a contract for the sale of real estate in Norwalk, Connecticut.
- The contract permitted the plaintiffs, as purchasers, to reject the seller's deed if the title was defective.
- The plaintiffs paid a $420 deposit to the defendant upon executing the contract.
- An examination of the property's title revealed a deed from 1945 in the defendant's chain of title that was executed in New York.
- This 1945 deed conveyed the property to the grantee 'and assigns forever,' but omitted the word 'heirs,' which is required by Connecticut common law to convey a fee simple.
- Based on this omission, the plaintiffs refused to accept the defendant's deed, claiming the title was defective.
- The plaintiffs demanded the return of their $420 deposit and $50 for title examination fees, which the defendant refused.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (purchasers) filed a lawsuit against the defendant (seller) in a Connecticut trial court to recover their contract deposit and title search fees.
- The case was submitted to the trial court on the pleadings and the deed in question.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendant, holding that the title was marketable.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the omission of the common law word of inheritance, 'heirs,' in a prior out-of-state deed within the chain of title render a seller's title unmarketable, thereby justifying the purchaser's rejection of the deed?
Opinions:
Majority - Wynne, C. J.
Yes, the omission of the word 'heirs' renders the title unmarketable. A marketable title must be free from reasonable doubt, both in law and in fact. Under Connecticut common law, a deed without the word 'heirs' conveys only a life estate, not a fee simple. This creates a significant cloud on the title, as its validity would depend on proving the grantor's intent through evidence outside the land records, forcing a purchaser to 'buy a lawsuit.' A state statute, General Statutes § 7087, which validates the form and manner of execution of out-of-state deeds, does not cure substantive defects in the estate conveyed by the deed's language. Therefore, the plaintiffs were justified in rejecting the deed because the title was not marketable.
Concurring - Baldwin, J.
Yes, the title is unmarketable. The decision should rest on the clear distinction between the formalities of a deed's execution and the substance of the estate it conveys. General Statutes § 7087 only cures defects related to the formal requirements of signing, attesting, and acknowledging a deed according to the laws of another state. It does not alter the substantive requirements of Connecticut common law regarding the words necessary to convey a fee simple estate. While the parties to the original deed may have intended to convey a fee, proving this would require a separate court action. The very necessity of such a proceeding to clear the title is what renders it unmarketable.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional common law requirement for specific words of inheritance ('and his heirs') to create a fee simple estate, highlighting the doctrine's persistence in certain jurisdictions. It establishes a critical distinction between statutes that cure procedural defects in a deed's execution and the substantive common law rules governing the nature of the estate conveyed. The case reinforces the definition of a marketable title, emphasizing that a buyer is not compelled to accept a title that presents a reasonable probability of future litigation, even if that litigation might ultimately be successful. This places a heavy burden on sellers to ensure every link in their chain of title strictly complies with the substantive property laws of the state where the land is located.
Unlock the full brief for Cole v. Steinlauf