Kupka v. Dickson

3 Citing cases

  1. Daniels v. Anderson

    113 Idaho 838 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    Mobile County v. Brantley, 507 So.2d 483 (Ala. 1987). See also Kupka v. Dickson, 72 Wn.2d 217, 432 P.2d 657 (1967). Here, Art Daniels' testimony as to Anderson's statements was substantial evidence concerning the cause of the cracking.

  2. Daily v. Warren

    558 P.2d 1374 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    Enforcing a forfeiture provision of an executory contract which specifically incorporated a partial earnest money deposit in the form of a promissory note given to the vendor as payee

    Cross, Equality for Spouses in Washington Community Property Law — 1972 Statutory Changes, 48 WASH. L. Rev. 527 (1973). Under the former statutes the husband acting alone as manager of the community property could bind the marital community to a purchase of real property. Kupka v. Dickson, 72 Wn.2d 217, 432 P.2d 657 (1967); Baker v. Murrey, 78 Wn. 241, 138 P. 890 (1914). Such was not the case, however, when the husband attempted to transfer or encumber the community real property; former RCW 26.16.040 specifically required that the wife join in the execution of the actual instrument of conveyance and that it be acknowledged by her. Washington cases construing this provision broadly interpreted "join" to mean "participation," which in turn was held to include the elements of authorization, ratification, and estoppel.

  3. National Bk. of Com. v. Green

    1 Wn. App. 713 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 17 times
    Ruling that RCW 26.16.200's extension of community property liability for separate debts must apply prospectively only because "[t]he statute adds to the burdens of and pro tanto alters community property, changing one of its characteristic incidents . . ."

    See Zarbell v. Mantas, 32 Wn.2d 920, 204 P.2d 203 (1949). If the note is executed for the benefit of the marital community, the presumption of community obligation is not overcome. Thus money borrowed to pay off a community debt or to acquire a community asset is for a community purpose. Kupka v. Dickson, 72 Wn.2d 217, 432 P.2d 657 (1967); Underwood v. Sterner, 63 Wn.2d 360, 387 P.2d 366 (1963); Beyers v. Moore, supra, Fies v. Storey, supra; Ness v.Bender, 18 Wn.2d 243, 138 P.2d 864 (1943); Mattinson v. Mattinson, 128 Wn. 328, 222 P. 620 (1924); Rea v. Eslick, 87 Wn. 125, 151 P. 256 (1915). If the debt is separate in character, the note is collectible only out of separate property. Smyser v. Smyser, 17 Wn.2d 301, 135 P.2d 455 (1943).