Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 32-904 (2026)
Separate property of wife — Management.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Separate property of wife — Management.
During the continuance of the marriage, the wife has the management, control and absolute power of disposition of her separate property, and may bargain, sell and convey her real and personal property, and may enter into any contract with reference to the same, in the same manner, and to the same extent, and with like effect, as a married man may in relation to his real and personal property: provided, that the husband shall be bound by such contracts to no greater extent or effect than his wife under similar circumstances would be bound by his contracts.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2022 · leading case: Williams v. Paxton, 559 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1977).
Williams v. Paxton, 559 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1977). “§ 2498, which had placed the management and control of the wife's separate property in her husband's hands, and enacted the following section, which is still in effect and is now codified as I.C. § 32-904: "32-904. Separate property of wife Management.”
Banner Life Ins. v. Mark Wallace Dixson Irrevocable Trust, 206 P.3d 481 (Idaho 2009). “Because Idaho does not require spousal consent to name a new beneficiary, the Trust argues that any contrary indication on the beneficiary change form was a misstatement of Idaho law.”
Rogers v. Yellowstone Park Co., 539 P.2d 566 (Idaho 1975). “It is difficult to perceive how a personal action would disrupt the tranquility of the marital state to any greater degree than would actions in partition, ejectment or for contesting of wills, all of which actions now may be maintained by a wife against her husband when such…”
Maslen v. Maslen, 822 P.2d 982 (Idaho 1991). “The second alleged error is that the trial court failed to properly calculate the value of the community interest in the pension plans.”
Van Orden v. Van Orden, 515 P.3d 233 (Idaho 2022). “I.C. §§ 32-904, 32-912; see also Compton, 101 Idaho at 335 , 612 P.”
Frost v. Mead, 383 P.2d 834 (Idaho 1963). “the marriage, the wife has the management, *163 control and absolute power of disposition of her separate property, and may bargain, sell and convey her real and personal property, and may enter into any contract with reference to the same, in the same manner, and to the same…”
Parke v. Parke, 279 P.2d 631 (Idaho 1955). “2d 1034 ; § 32-904 I.C. In addition, this is a contract by which she received property for her separate estate, as to which she did not lack capacity.”
Coffin v. Cox, 298 P.2d 742 (Idaho 1956). “The appellant may, within five days after such service of said notice, file a new undertaking which shall be in lieu of the one previously filed.”
Mark Wallace Dixson Irrevocable Trust v. Tammie Sue Dixson (Idaho 2009). “It points out that the policy itself does not require spousal consent unless required by state law. Because Idaho does not require spousal consent to name a new beneficiary, the Trust argues that any contrary indication on the beneficiary change form was a misstatement of Idaho…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.