Control of community property.
Either the husband or the wife shall have the right to manage and control the community property, and either may bind the community property by contract, except that neither the husband nor wife may sell, convey or encumber the community real estate unless the other joins in executing the sale agreement, deed or other instrument of conveyance by which the real estate is sold, conveyed or encumbered, and any community obligation incurred by either the husband or the wife without the consent in writing of the other shall not obligate the separate property of the spouse who did not so consent; provided, however, that the husband or wife may by express power of attorney give to the other the complete power to sell, convey or encumber community property, either real or personal. All deeds, conveyances, bills of sale, or evidences of debt heretofore made in conformity herewith are hereby validated.
Notes of Decisions
New Phase Investments v. Jarvis & DAFCO, 280 P.3d 710 (Idaho 2012).
· cites it 43× “Idaho Code § 32-912 governs the property rights of husband and wife, and New Phase cites no authority for the proposition that an assignee of rights to community property is entitled to the same protections those parties have under the statute.”
Lovelass v. Sword, 90 P.3d 330 (Idaho 2004).
· cites it 22× “Lovelass to sell the Lovelass’s community real estate is void under I.C. § 32-912 because Mrs. Lovelass did not join in the execution of the agreement, 3) whether the Lovelasses are entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal.”
C. Forsman Real Est. Co. v. Hatch, 547 P.2d 1116 (Idaho 1976).
· cites it 12× “At the time these parties entered into the brokerage agreement, I.C. § 32-912 gave the husband of a marital community the sole right to manage, control and dispose of community property subject to an exception for the conveyance or encumberance of community real estate.”
Garner v. Bartschi, 80 P.3d 1031 (Idaho 2003).
· cites it 6× “Bartschi contends that the document cannot be legally presented as an amendment without his signature because it violates I.C. § 32-912. Ms. Bartschi repudiated the contract alleging that “the agreement was signed under extreme medical duress and medical incompetency by reason…”
Williams v. Paxton, 559 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1977).
· cites it 12× “may in relation to his real and personal property," the clear implication was that a married woman, like a married man, could and would obligate her separate property by any contract which she freely entered, not merely by those contracts for her own personal use or benefit or…”
Calvin v. Salmon River Sheep Ranch, 658 P.2d 972 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 30× “Consequently, we hold that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the Rupps and the Salmon River Sheep Ranch.”
White v. Rehn, 644 P.2d 323 (Idaho 1982).
· cites it 8× “The Rehns contend that, since neither Vernon nor Karen Rehn acknowledged their signatures on the earnest money agreement as required by I.C. § 32-912, the agreement cannot be enforced against them.”
United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 1102 (West 1994); Idaho Code § 32-912 (1996); La. Civ. Code Ann.”
Rogers v. Yellowstone Park Co., 539 P.2d 566 (Idaho 1975).
· cites it 7× “The principal issue in those cases was whether the proper parties were before the court, and the court held that since the husband was the manager of the community property under I.C. § 32-912 [3] he was a necessary and proper party to bring an action belonging to the community.”
Suter v. Suter, 546 P.2d 1169 (Idaho 1976).
· cites it 4× “— The husband has the management and control of the community property, except the earnings of the wife for her personal services and the rents and profits of her separate estate.”
Noble v. Glenns Ferry Bank, Ltd., 421 P.2d 444 (Idaho 1966).
· cites it 10× “Appellant relies upon I.C. § 32-912, which, reads: “The husband has the management and control of the community property, except the earnings of the wife for her personal services and the rents and profits of her separate estate.”
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.