Court Opinion

ID: 9577303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:33:42.568714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:19.088550
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
KEETON, Justice.
Rehearing was granted in the above matter and re-argument had on the 9th day of November, 1953. The issues presented have again been examined.
The primary purpose of the contract sued on was to secure construction of, and title to, a dwelling on land described in the contract. In the construction of'the *540dwelling defendants were to furnish all labor and material, perform all work and convey the dwelling and land by warranty deed to plaintiffs, free and clear of incumbrances. It appears from the testimony that defendant Foster was in the construction business, that is, making improvements on land and selling the same to purchasers under a plan of the Federal Housing Administration. The latter organization took mortgages on the land and improvements and advanced the money to pay the balance due when the improvement was completed and approved. The Federal Housing Administration approved the loan in the instant case, and stood ready to pay over the money when the defendants performed and conveyed a good title to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs executed all papers required by the contract, and the Federal Housing Administration agreed to advance the money to pay defendants, the loan to be repaid by plaintiffs at so much per month.
In the findings the court found that plaintiffs had performed all acts required of them by the contract to be performed. Defendants refused to perform, for what reason does not appear, and no valid excuse or reason is disclosed by the pleadings or the testimony.
As stated in the original opinion, title to the land in question was conveyed to defendant Foster subsequent to the time the improvement on the land, under the contract, should have been completed. The deed dated June 5, 1950 (defendants’ Exh. 2) describes Thomas D. Foster, Jr., and Esther Foster, his wife, as grantees. This is subsequent to the time the dwelling should have been completed and conveyance to. plaintiffs made (May 1, 1950).
The issue of the property being community property, if it was, was not raised by the pleadings. The wife was not a party and has not here asserted any interest in the land or the contract. The legal principles involved are very similar to those discussed in Morgan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 68 Idaho 506, 201 P.2d 976.
When the land was conveyed to Foster and wife, the rights of plaintiffs in the land and improvements had already accrued and defendant Foster acquired the land, or his interest in it, subsequent to the contract of sale, in which he agreed to convey to plaintiffs.
The character of community property is vested at the time of its acquisition, and the wife’s interest, if any, vested at that time (June 5, 1950).
It should also be noted, in the findings the trial court found that defendant Foster was the owner of the premises described in the complaint. Being the owner, and the question of community property, if any, being only incidentally involved or mentioned, we conclude that Foster was, or should have been, in a position to comply with the contract and no legal reason appears why he should not do so. He had contracted to make a good merchantable title.
*541The husband, as manager or agent of the community, could acquire realty subject to liens or outstanding rights of third persons. This he did in this case.
We adhere to the opinion as originally written and the conclusion reached.
GIVENS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
PORTER, C. J., and THOMAS, J., dissent ; and continue to adhere to the original dissenting opinion filed herein.