Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)

to the lease and not just the plaintiff because an ‘‘agree-
          ment’’ requires the assent of more than one party.
          According to the defendant, ‘‘[t]he ambiguity inherent
          in paragraph 10 (A) is in the [plaintiff’s] linking the
          word ‘us’ which it chose to use as a definition term
          beyond its normal meaning with the word ‘agreement’
          which by definition requires more than one actor to
          form.’’ The defendant notes that, although the verb
          ‘‘agree’’ appears many times throughout the lease, the
          term ‘‘agreement’’ appears ‘‘but once’’ in paragraph 10
          (A). Essentially, the defendant argues that, although
          one party can agree to something, it takes more than
          one party to form an agreement. Although there is some
          logic to the defendant’s argument when considered in
          isolation, the result of this interpretation is unreason-
          able when taken in the context of the entire document.11
            In effect, the defendant asks us to read paragraph 10
          (A) independently of the other provisions of the lease,
          which we cannot do. We are not persuaded that the
          mere use of the word ‘‘agreement’’ in paragraph 10
          (A) renders ambiguous terms defined by the lease. We
          reiterate that the terms ‘‘we’’ and ‘‘us’’ are not only
          defined in the lease, referring to the plaintiff, but consis-
          tently so throughout its provisions.
             Likewise, the term ‘‘agree’’ is also used consistently
          throughout the lease. After defining ‘‘we’’ and ‘‘us’’ as
          the plaintiff, the lease states that, ‘‘[w]e agree to lease
          to you, and you agree to lease from us [the premises].
          . . . You and we agree to the following [lease provi-
          sions] . . . .’’ In paragraph 6, the lease details which
            11
               During cross-examination, the defendant admitted that the term ‘‘us’’
          was defined in the lease to mean the plaintiff, but she suggested that the
          fact that paragraph 10 (A) is handwritten means that it is an ‘‘added clause’’
          that alters the ‘‘original lease.’’ To be clear, as the defendant acknowledged
          throughout these proceedings, there was a single typed ‘‘original’’ lease
          document that was signed by both parties in 2012, which contained the
          handwritten paragraph 10 (A) that has been the subject of dispute.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 11