## Facts

- Mary and Walter Stefanovicz owned a farm as tenants in common, each holding an undivided one-half interest.
- Anthony Botticello negotiated with Walter for a lease containing an option to purchase the farm.
- The written lease-option set a purchase price of $85,000 and was signed only by Walter and Botticello; Mary did not sign.
- At the time of contracting, Botticello and the attorneys involved did not know Walter lacked sole ownership.
- Botticello took possession, paid rent, and made substantial improvements.
- When Botticello attempted to exercise the option, both Mary and Walter refused to convey.
- Botticello sued for specific performance seeking conveyance of the entire farm; the trial court ordered both owners to convey by warranty deed upon payment of the purchase-price balance.
- The defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Mary was bound to the lease-option through Walter’s actual authority, apparent authority, or Mary’s ratification.
2. Whether the lease-option satisfied the Statute of Frauds and could be specifically enforced, and if so, against whom and to what extent.

## Decision

- The court held Mary was not bound because Walter lacked actual authority and apparent authority to act for her, and Mary did not ratify the agreement.
- The court held the written lease-option satisfied the Statute of Frauds and was enforceable against Walter, but only to the extent of his undivided one-half interest.
- The judgment ordering conveyance of the entire property was reversed in part and the case was remanded for the trial court to determine appropriate relief against Walter (including consideration of limited specific performance and/or monetary damages).

## Legal Principles

- Marriage and co-ownership (including tenancy in common) do not, by themselves, create an agency relationship allowing one spouse or co-tenant to bind the other in a land transaction.
- Actual authority requires a manifestation from the principal authorizing the agent to act on the principal’s behalf for the transaction in question.
- Apparent authority requires manifestations by the principal to the third party; if the third party is unaware the purported principal exists, apparent authority cannot be established.
- Ratification of an unauthorized act requires the principal’s knowledge of the material facts; acceptance of benefits (such as rent or value from improvements) without such knowledge does not constitute ratification.
- A land-sale agreement signed by only one co-tenant may be enforceable against that co-tenant’s interest if it satisfies the Statute of Frauds, but cannot be enforced to compel conveyance of a non-signing co-tenant’s interest absent agency or ratification.
- When a contracting seller promises full title but owns only a partial interest, remedies may include specific performance limited to that interest and/or damages or abatement, but not compelled transfer of a non-contracting owner’s share.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel a non-signing co-tenant to convey her interest because no agency or knowing ratification was shown, while permitting enforcement of the otherwise valid lease-option only against the signing co-tenant’s partial interest and remanding to determine the proper remedy for the buyer.


Botticello v. Stefanovicz, 177 Conn. 22, 411 A.2d 16 (Conn. 1979)