Mott v. Eddins
| Decision Date | 25 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Citation | 725 P.2d 761,151 Ariz. 54 |
| Parties | H. William MOTT and Kathy P. Mott, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. William EDDINS and Janet M. Eddins, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants. 5688. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a breach of contract action involving the sale of a residence in Tucson, Arizona. At the time the events which are the subject of this litigation took place, William and Janet Eddins were domiciled in California but were planning to move to Tucson, which they did in 1983. Mr. Eddins, who had conducted a majority of his business activity in Tucson since 1978, came to Tucson and signed a deposit receipt and agreement wherein he agreed to buy the house owned by the Motts, who were domiciled in Arizona. "Mr. Eddins and/or assigns" were indicated on the contract as purchaser; Mrs. Eddins never signed the contract. Subsequently, Mr. Eddins refused to close the transaction, the Eddinses did not at that time move to Arizona, and the property was sold to someone else for a lesser amount. The Motts then brought this action for damages for breach of contract.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that California law governed, that the contract was enforceable against the Eddinses, and that the Motts were entitled to a judgment against the Eddinses in the sum of $81,408.57 together with attorney's fees and costs.
In Arizona both spouses must join in any transaction for the acquisition of real property. A.R.S. § 25-214(C). In California, however, there is no such requirement for the acquisition of real estate. See Cal. Civil Code § 5127 (West 1983). The Eddinses contend that the trial court erred in applying California law and that the judgment against the community should be reversed and judgment entered only against Mr. Eddins.
There being no Arizona statutes or decisions controlling the issue presented, we turn to the Restatement of the Law. Taylor v. Security National Bank, 20 Ariz.App. 504, 514 P.2d 257 (1973). Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 189 (1971), states:
"The validity of a contract for the transfer of an interest in land and the rights created thereby are determined, in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties, by the local law of the state where the land is situated unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship under the principles stated in § 6 to the transaction and the parties, in which event the local law of the other state will be applied."
Section 6 of the Restatement provides:
The rationale behind § 189 is set forth in Comment c:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLoach v. Alfred
...Bristor v. Cheatham, 75 Ariz. 227, 255 P.2d 173 (1953); Ingalls v. Neidlinger, 70 Ariz. 40, 216 P.2d 387 (1950); Mott v. Eddins, 151 Ariz. 54, 725 P.2d 761 (App.1986). "One of the reasons, if not the main reason that we follow the Restatement in the absence of prior Arizona decisions, is th......
-
Phoenix Arbor Plaza, Ltd. v. Dauderman
...§ 6 (1971). The trial judge applied these factors to this case, and we do not disagree with his analysis. See also Mott v. Eddins, 151 Ariz. 54, 725 P.2d 761 (App.1986). The appellant maintains, however, that when dealing with community property in one state involving a transaction conducte......