Klaas v. Haueter
745 P.2d 870, 49 Wash. App. 697 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a marital community to be bound by a real estate contract signed by only one spouse, the non-signing spouse must have specifically authorized the transaction, subsequently ratified it with full knowledge, or be estopped from denying it due to their own conduct. A spouse's general desire to sell community property is insufficient to constitute authorization for a specific listing agreement.
Facts:
- Roy and Billee Haueter, a married couple, owned an apartment building as community property and decided to sell it.
- Billee Haueter gave her husband, Roy, a power of attorney for convenience, with the understanding that he would discuss any document signings with her beforehand.
- On August 16, 1982, Roy Haueter, with Billee's knowledge and authorization, signed both their names to an exclusive listing agreement with broker Roger Kreimeyer.
- The Haueters were subsequently released from the Kreimeyer agreement.
- On October 3, 1982, Roy Haueter, acting alone and without Billee's knowledge, signed a new exclusive listing agreement with another real estate broker, Larry Klaas.
- Roy Haueter did not sign Billee Haueter's name to the Klaas agreement, either directly or using the power of attorney.
- Billee Haueter remained unaware of the Klaas listing agreement until Klaas filed a lawsuit.
- On November 29, 1982, the Haueters sold their apartment building through a different agent, Dennis Weybright.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Klaas sued Roy and Billee Haueter in a state trial court to recover a real estate commission.
- The trial court entered judgment for Klaas against Roy Haueter as an individual.
- The trial court found that the marital community of Roy and Billee Haueter was not liable for the commission.
- Larry Klaas (appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling on community liability to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, with the Haueters as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a marital community bound by an exclusive real estate listing agreement for community property when the agreement is signed by only one spouse, and the non-signing spouse generally desired to sell the property but had no knowledge of that specific agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - McInturff, C.J.
No. A marital community is not bound by an exclusive listing agreement signed by only one spouse when the non-signing spouse lacked specific knowledge of and did not consent to that particular agreement. The general rule requiring the joinder of both spouses for transactions involving community real property is strictly construed. Exceptions to this rule exist only where there is specific authorization, ratification, or estoppel. Here, Billee Haueter did not authorize the Klaas agreement, as her general desire to sell the property and prior authorization of a different listing agreement did not extend to this specific contract. She could not have ratified the agreement because ratification requires knowledge of the act being affirmed, and she was unaware of the contract until the lawsuit. Finally, estoppel does not apply because she had no contact with Klaas and took no action that could have led him to believe she approved of the transaction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strictness of the spousal joinder requirement for contracts involving community real property in Washington. It clarifies that the exceptions of authorization, ratification, and estoppel are narrowly construed and require the non-signing spouse to have knowledge of and involvement in the specific transaction at issue. The ruling establishes that a general power of attorney or a shared desire to sell property does not grant one spouse unilateral authority to bind the community to real estate contracts. This precedent serves to protect the property interests of a non-participating spouse from unilateral obligations incurred by the other.
Unlock the full brief for Klaas v. Haueter