## Facts

- James B. Miller and Elaine R. Miller were married and owned Texas real property as community property.
- Stephen B. Vallone agreed to purchase the property and an “Earnest Money Contract” was prepared on a printed form with blanks filled in.
- The contract named Vallone as the purchaser and listed both James and Elaine Miller as the sellers, and it contained a description of the entire property.
- In the signature section, Vallone signed as purchaser and James Miller signed on the seller’s line; Elaine Miller did not sign the contract.
- The Millers did not perform under the contract.
- Vallone sued the Millers for specific performance of the alleged contract to convey the property, or alternatively for damages.
- The Millers denied that James had authority to act for Elaine, contended the property was joint-management community property that could not be conveyed or encumbered by one spouse alone, and asserted the contract was incomplete on its face because Elaine’s signature was missing.
- The case was tried to a jury on special issues. The jury found the property was joint-management community property.
- Based on the jury’s findings, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment against Vallone.
- On appeal, the record was limited; the earnest money contract attached to Vallone’s pleadings constituted the entire statement of facts before the court, and appellate review focused on whether the jury’s answers supported the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether an earnest money contract to convey real property that lists both spouses as sellers, but is signed only by the husband, can be enforced to compel conveyance of the wife’s interest when the property is found to be joint-management community property.
2. Whether the jury’s finding that the property was joint-management community property supported the trial court’s take-nothing judgment denying specific performance or damages to the buyer.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for James and Elaine Miller.
- The jury’s finding that the property was joint-management community property was determinative of Vallone’s claimed right to enforce the contract against Elaine’s interest.
- Given the absence of Elaine’s signature on a contract that named her as a seller, and the jury’s joint-management finding, the trial court did not err by refusing to order conveyance of the property or award Vallone damages.
- Because the appeal was limited to whether the jury’s answers supported the judgment, Vallone’s points of error (that judgment should have been entered in his favor on the verdict) were overruled.

## Legal Principles

- When community property is subject to joint management, one spouse acting alone cannot bind the other spouse to convey the other spouse’s interest in the property through a contract that the other spouse did not sign.
- A written real estate contract that identifies both spouses as sellers but contains only one spouse’s signature is not enforceable to compel the non-signing spouse’s conveyance of title when the property is joint-management community property.
- A spouse may have power to transfer his or her own undivided interest in certain community property, but that does not create a basis to compel transfer of the other spouse’s interest when the contract seeks conveyance of the entire property and the other spouse did not sign.
- When an appellate record is confined to the contract instrument and the appeal is limited to whether jury findings support the judgment, a dispositive jury finding on property characterization can support denial of specific performance and damages.

## Conclusion

Because the jury found the property was joint-management community property and the earnest money contract named both spouses as sellers but was signed only by James Miller, the contract could not be enforced to require Elaine Miller to convey her interest, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s take-nothing judgment against Vallone.


Vallone v. Miller, 663 S.W.2d 97 (1983)