## Facts

- On September 18, 1941, Mary A. Searle conveyed a tract of land in Windsor, Connecticut, to her four children—Rena L. (Searle) Dennen, Ralph B. Searle, Inez C. Searle, and Elbert A. Searle—as tenants in common.
- On June 21, 1948, all four children executed an “unartfully drawn” instrument titled “Agreement” that purported (1) to change the children’s respective rights and interests as cotenants among themselves and (2) to convey certain remainder interests in the land to others.
- The 1948 “Agreement” was not recorded when it was signed and remained unrecorded for several years.
- Elbert A. Searle died intestate on May 10, 1953.
- Those entitled to Elbert’s estate were his widow, Mildred Beebe Searle (defendant), and their two children, Milton C. and Enid L. Searle.
- Mildred did not know about the 1948 “Agreement” until after Elbert’s death.
- The 1948 “Agreement” was recorded on May 19, 1953—nine days after Elbert died.
- At an undisclosed time after Elbert’s death (and before February 19, 1955), Mildred and the two children executed a mutual distribution of Elbert’s estate in which all of Elbert’s interest in the tract was set to Mildred.
- The three surviving siblings (plaintiffs) were in possession of the property and claimed their rights were governed by the 1948 “Agreement.”
- Plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title under Connecticut General Statutes § 47-31 against Mildred, alleging she claimed an interest adverse to theirs.
- The 1948 instrument also purported to create remainder interests in persons other than Mildred, but those remaindermen were not made parties to the action.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1948 instrument styled as an “Agreement” should be construed as a present conveyance (a deed) affecting interests in land, rather than as a nonbinding arrangement.
2. Whether the instrument’s formal defects—especially the asserted absence of a seal—and the fact it was recorded only after Elbert’s death made it inoperative against Mildred.
3. Whether Connecticut validating acts could cure such defects and operate against Mildred’s claim that her inheritance rights vested at Elbert’s death (before recording).
4. Whether Mildred, as Elbert’s heir and distributee, could take a greater interest in the land than Elbert retained after the 1948 instrument.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court treated the 1948 “Agreement,” despite its label and drafting, as an instrument intended to make present changes in the cotenants’ property interests and to effect conveyances of interests in land.
- The court held that statutory validating acts cured the type of defect asserted (including want of a seal), and the recording of the instrument supported its enforceability.
- The court rejected Mildred’s argument that her rights as an heir vested at Elbert’s death in a way that defeated the 1948 conveyance; as Elbert’s successor, she could receive only what he still owned.
- Because other remaindermen named in the instrument were not parties, the court limited its determination to the rights of the plaintiffs and Mildred and did not purport to finally determine nonparties’ interests.

## Legal Principles

- An instrument affecting land is construed by its language and the parties’ intent as shown by the whole writing and surrounding circumstances; a document titled an “Agreement” may operate as a deed if it is meant to make a present transfer or present rearrangement of property interests.
- Connecticut validating acts may retroactively cure specified formal defects in conveyance instruments (including defects such as lack of seal) so that an otherwise defective deed can be given effect as intended, particularly as between those claiming through the original parties.
- Recording is primarily a notice and priority device; a successor in interest generally cannot claim more than the predecessor owned merely because an earlier conveyance was recorded later.
- An heir or distributee stands in the decedent’s shoes with respect to property the decedent previously conveyed; the successor takes only the decedent’s remaining interest, if any, and cannot defeat a prior conveyance that bound the decedent.
- In a quiet title action, the court should not finally adjudicate the rights of absent persons who claim interests in the property; the judgment should be confined to the interests of parties before the court when necessary parties are missing.

## Conclusion

In Dennen v. Searle, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the 1948 “Agreement” among Mary Searle’s four children was intended to operate as a present conveyance altering their cotenancy interests, and that any execution defect such as lack of seal was cured by Connecticut validating acts once the instrument was recorded; because Mildred Searle claimed only through her deceased husband Elbert, she could take no greater interest than Elbert retained after the 1948 conveyance, and the judgment quieting title for the plaintiffs (limited to the parties before the court) was affirmed.


Dennen v. Searle, 176 A.2d 561, 149 Conn. 126 (1961)