Legal Opinion · Dissent

C. Forsman Real Estate Company v. Hatch

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1976No. 11791Published

1DissentMcQUADE, Chief Justice

I believe that a real estate commission contract employing a broker to find a purchaser of community realty requires the execution and acknowledgment of both spousal owners. The applicable Idaho statute of frauds governing this area is unique in its terminology. Our provision requires that a contract for procuring a purchaser for real property be “. . . signed by the owner of such real estate.” We must assume this choice of language was deliberate on the part of the Legislature which enacted this provision. Statutes from our sister states refer to “the party to be charged” with respect to the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Houser v. HobartIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Anderson v. Idaho Mutual Benefit AssociationIdaho Supreme Court · 1956
  3. State v. HamiltonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1956
  4. McDowell v. WillisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API