Court Opinion

ID: 9625253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:33:33.529286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:04.371198
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Justice
(dissenting).
The fact that Genevieve Palmer, wife of Hoyt Palmer, was not named in the claim of lien as filed is of no importance. The statute, Sec. 45-507, I.C., provides that one claiming the benefits of the lien law must “ * * * file for record with the county recorder for the county in which such property or some part thereof is situated, a claim containing * * * the name of the owner, or reputed owner,, if known * * and makes no reference whatever to the record owner.
In Gem State Lumber Company v. Union Grain & Elevator Company, 47 Idaho 747, 278 P. 775, this Court held where the record owner was not named as a defendant in the notice of claim of lien, such *111omission was not fatal and that the lien could be foreclosed against the actual owner of the property.
In the present situation defendant Genevieve Palmer, wife, actually directed the improvements made on the property. There could be no surprise or prejudice and the lien as filed is sufficient to bind the property.
The fact that the wife was not named as a defendant in the complaint on foreclosure is likewise not fatal.
The husband is charged with the management and control of the community property. Sec. 32-912, I.C. Actions on community obligations are properly brought against the husband alone and the wife is not a necessary party.
Nor is the wife a necessaiy party in an action against the husband to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on community property. Levy v. Kalabich, 35 N.M. 282, 295 P. 296; Yearout v. American Pipe & Steel Corporation, 74 Cal.App.2d 139, 168 P.2d 174. In such an action the husband represents both his own and his wife’s community interest. Cutting v. Bryan, 206 Cal. 254, 274 P. 326.
Hence in an action to foreclose the lien commenced within the six month period prescribed by statute the court acquires jurisdiction of the property and of the interest of both husband and wife therein. Making the wife a defendant after the six months had expired was not necessary.
Such a joinder of the wife as defendant might forestall any subsequent claim which she might assert, and making her a party could avoid a possible cloud on the title.
The fact that claimant failed to prove the full amount claimed in the lien would not prevent the allowance of attorney fees, which is only an incident to the foreclosure of the lien.
Plaintiff is entitled to have his lien foreclosed, reasonable attorney fees allowed him, and the cost of the foreclosure and interest on the sums found due. None of the matters presented by defendant constitutes any defense to the action.