## Facts

- Roy and Billee Haueter, husband and wife, owned an apartment building as community property and decided to sell it.
- Billee had earlier given Roy a power of attorney largely for convenience so he could sign her name on documents when she could not be present.
- Billee’s authorization was limited: Roy was to sign her name only on documents the two of them had discussed beforehand.
- In October 1982, Roy signed a six-month exclusive-listing agreement with real estate broker Lawrence D. Klaas (doing business as Allied Brokers).
- The Klaas listing contained an exception for broker Dennis Weybright, who could continue listing the building until November 5, 1982.
- Billee did not sign the Klaas agreement, Roy did not sign Billee’s name under the power of attorney, and Roy did not discuss the Klaas agreement with Billee before signing.
- Billee testified she had no knowledge of the Klaas listing agreement until Klaas later filed suit.
- On November 29, 1982, Weybright sold the apartment building for more than $250,000 and received a 6% commission.
- Klaas sued Roy and Billee Haueter for breach of the exclusive listing agreement, seeking recovery from both spouses and the marital community.
- The trial court awarded Klaas relief only against Roy individually, finding Billee neither authorized nor ratified Roy’s agreement with Klaas.
- Klaas appealed, arguing the exclusive-listing agreement bound the marital community.

## Issues

1. Whether an exclusive listing agreement signed only by the husband, without the wife’s signature, knowledge, authorization, or ratification, created a community obligation enforceable against the marital community.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
- The court held Klaas could recover, if at all, only from Roy individually and not from Billee or the marital community.
- The court accepted the trial court’s findings that Billee did not authorize Roy to enter the Klaas listing agreement and did not ratify it after the fact.
- The court rejected the argument that a broad, general authority to act for the community (or the existence of a convenience-based power of attorney) automatically made the community liable on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Community liability for a spouse’s contract is not automatic; a spouse’s signature alone does not, by itself, make the marital community liable.
- A power of attorney given for convenience may be limited in scope; whether it authorizes a specific transaction depends on the authority actually granted and the spouses’ understanding.
- To bind the community through a non-signing spouse, the proponent must prove authorization of the specific transaction or later ratification by the non-signing spouse.
- Claims of authorization and ratification commonly turn on credibility and intent; appellate review defers to trial court fact-finding when supported by evidence.
- Washington cases reject a “general authorization” theory that would impose community liability without proof tying the non-signing spouse to the particular agreement.

## Conclusion

Because Billee Haueter did not sign the exclusive listing agreement with Klaas, did not know about it when it was made, and neither authorized nor ratified it, the listing agreement did not create a community obligation, and any recovery was limited to Roy Haueter individually.


Klaas v. Haueter, 745 P.2d 870 (1987)