Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Tuttle v. Martin, 352 A.2d 321 (1975)

Citation
Tuttle v. Martin, 352 A.2d 321 (1975)
Parent Document
Tuttle v. Martin, 352 A.2d 321 (1975)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1975-05-05

Full Text

963 chars
There is no question that a parol lease for an indefinite period reserving a monthly rental is a lease for one month only. Kligerman v. Robinson,140 Conn. 219, 221; Webb v. Ambler, 125 Conn. 543,551. "The tenancy for each month is separate and distinct from that of every other month. Welk v.Bidwell, 136 Conn. 603, 607 . . . . There is a new contract of leasing for each successive month;DiCostanzo v. Tripodi, 137 Conn. 513, 515 . . .; and the right of tenancy ends with that month for which the rent has been paid. Webb v. Ambler, . . . [supra]. Since monthly payments must be made as consideration for each contract of leasing, it necessarily follows that if the parties are in dispute as to the amount of the rent, the tenant, in order to avoid default, must tender each month the amount he claims it to be, as an offer of the performance of his part of the contract." Kligerman v. Robinson,
supra, 221. The evidence clearly establishes the requisite tender.