Ernst v. Conditt, 54 Tenn. App. 328 (1964) p465.

subleases and assignments

Ernst leased a tract of land to Rogers. Rogers then sold his business, which he was operating on the land, to Conditt. Conditt took over making payments to Ernst. Conditt stopped paying the rent a few months before the lease was to expire. Ernst notified Conditt by letter the lease would expire soon and that he demanded a settlement of the past due rent, unless the improvements to the property were removed by him. If the improvements were not removed they would have them removed at Conditt's expense.

Complainants (Ernst) filed their bill seeking recovery on the balance due of basic rent for the first year, and the sum of the basic rent for the second year, and for further sum necessary for the removal of the improvements constructed on the property.

Was this an assignment of the lease to Conditt by Rogers or was it only a sublease by Rogers, and if it was a sublet, then is Rogers still responsible for the owed rent?

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. Conversly, 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.

The defendant is an assignment of the lease, and is therefore liable for all damages.

Rogers gave complete control of the property to Conditt for the remainder of the lease. He parted with his entire interest in the property. Defendant became owner of the improvements and is therefore responsible for their removal.

power of termination or right of re-entry - the original lessee may terminate the arrangement and take possession at any time.