Hannah v. Tennant
| Decision Date | 24 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12170,12170 |
| Citation | 1979 NMSC 9,92 N.M. 444,589 P.2d 1035 |
| Parties | Raymond C. HANNAH and Vonnie B. Hannah, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward A. TENNANT and Josefina V. Tennant, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Raymond and Vonnie Hannah (appellees) are husband and wife. They brought this action against Edward and Josefina Tennant (appellants) seeking specific performance of an executory contract for the sale of a portion of appellees' community real property. A handwritten document, apparently considered by appellees to be a contract for the sale of certain real property in Albuquerque, was signed by both appellants, as buyers, and by appellee Vonnie Hannah, alone, as seller. Less than 72 hours after signing this document, appellants sent appellee Vonnie Hannah a letter in which they stated their intent to withdraw from the proposed real estate purchase. Appellees filed suit in the District Court of Bernalillo County asking for specific performance of the alleged contract. Appellants' answer included a third affirmative defense which is the only subject involved in this appeal. It stated:
Exhibit "A" (the executory contract) is not a valid and binding contract in the State of New Mexico because of the Plaintiffs (appellees') failure to comply with the provisions of Section 57-4A-7, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.; the Complaint must therefore be dismissed.
There is no indication in the record that a power of attorney from appellee Raymond Hannah to appellee Vonnie Hannah was ever executed or recorded.
Prior to the trial, the court granted appellees' motion to strike appellants' third affirmative defense. Appellants applied for, and this Court granted, an order allowing an interlocutory appeal.
The issue in this case is whether both spouses must Sign a contract for the sale of community real property in order to meet the requirement of § 40-3-13, N.M.S.A.1978 (formerly § 57-4A-7, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1975)), that both spouses join in the contract to transfer, or whether the word "join" as used in the statute merely refers to a state of mind.
Section 40-3-13 provides:
Transfers, conveyances, mortgages and leases of real property; when joinder required.
A. Except for purchase-money mortgages and except as otherwise provided in this subsection, The spouses must join in all transfers, conveyances or mortgages or Contracts to transfer, convey or mortgage Any interest in community real property and separate real property owned by the spouses as cotenants in joint tenancy or tenancy in common. . . .
Any transfer, conveyance, mortgage or lease or Contract to transfer, convey, mortgage or lease Any interest in the community real property or in separate real property owned by the spouses as cotenants in joint tenancy or tenancy in common, Attempted to be made by either spouse alone in violation of the provisions of this section shall be void and of no effect, except that either spouse may transfer, convey, mortgage or lease directly to the other without the other joining therein.
B. Nothing in this section shall affect the right of one of the spouses to transfer, convey, mortgage or lease, or Contract to transfer, convey, mortgage or lease, Any community real property, or separate real property owned by the spouses as cotenants in joint tenancy or tenancy in common, without the joinder of the other spouse, Pursuant to a validly executed and recorded power of attorney as provided in Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huntington Nat. Bank v. Sproul
...of both spouses on documents transferring, conveying, mortgaging, or leasing community real property. See Hannah v. Tennant, 92 N.M. 444, 446, 589 P.2d 1035, 1037 (1979). Under Section 40-3-13(A), transactions made by one spouse alone in violation of its provisions are "void and of no effec......
-
English v. Sanchez
...not joined by both spouses "void and of no effect," absent a validly executed and recorded power of attorney. See Hannah v. Tennant, 92 N.M. 444, 589 P.2d 1035 (1979); see also Arch, Ltd. v. Yu, 108 N.M. 67, 766 P.2d 911 (1988); Sims v. Craig, 96 N.M. 33, 627 P.2d 875 (1981). And, since the......
-
C & L Lumber and Supply, Inc. v. Texas American Bank/Galeria
...raised by husband, who alone executed real estate exchange agreement, as a defense to breach of contract action); Hannah v. Tennant, 92 N.M. 444, 589 P.2d 1035 (1979) (issue raised by vendees to avoid contract not joined by vendor's wife). See also McGrail v. Fields, 53 N.M. 158, 203 P.2d 1......
-
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co., Inc. v. Grimm
...property conveyance, other jurisdictions have held that it means to join in the execution of the conveyance. See Hannah v. Tennant, 92 N.M. 444, 446, 589 P.2d 1035, 1037 (1979); Collins v. Cornwell, 131 Ind. 20, 21-22, 30 N.E. 796, 797 (1892); Nolan v. Moore, 96 Tex. 341, 72 S.W. 583 (1903)......
-
CHAPTER 3 DOTTING YOUR I'S AND CROSSING YOUR T'S: ENSURING PROPER PAYMENT AND EXECUTION
...N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-3-13(A) (any attempted conveyance (or lease) by one spouse of community property is void); see Hannah v. Tennant, 589 P.2d 1035 (N.M. 1979). In Alaska and Texas, if title is in one spouse only, that spouse alone can execute a lease, except for a homestead. Alaska Stat. ......
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LAW: A COMPENDIUM
...Cal. Fam. Code § 1100 (West 2011). [71] N. M. Stat. Ann. § 47-1-7 (2010). [72] N. M. Stat. Ann. § 40-3-13. [73] Hannah v. Tennant, 589 P.2d 1035 (N.M. 1979). [74] N. D. Cent. Code § 47-19-14.4 (2010). [75] Dixon v. Kaufman, 58 N.W.2d 797 (N.D. 1953), see also N. D. Cent. Code § 47-18-05 ("T......