Quote:
Originally Posted by acs236
Very very generally speaking, it depends more on the third party who bought your gear than on your spouse. If the third-party purchaser was a "good faith" purchaser for value -- i.e., they paid money and didn't know that the gear wasn't your spouses to sell -- you can't get it back from the buyer.
|
That's true, but I think the BFP for value rules don't even come into play here because maritial property is considered to be jointly owned, and thus either husband or wife would have legal rigths to sell any of it (i.e., he can sell her purses and shoes as well). I suppose you could get some judges to entertain an argument that the property was separately owned by the husband, and thus not the wife's to sell, but most of them don't have any patience for this kind of thing.
If the items in question is registered in his name (as would be the case for a car, as an example), or if there are contractual 'capacity' issues with her that would and make any sales she made voidable (i.e., if she was mentally incompetant), or if the Statute of Frauds comes into play such that the contract would need to be in writing (i.e., sale of real estate), etc., then there could be something to argue about. In other words, there are a lot of "ifs" that might possibly come into play.
But when it comes to selling ordinary household goods such as audio equipment, the most common view is that it's his or hers to sell, and notice or no notice of the 'true' ownership rights within the marital relation, pretty much any buyer will take free of the husband's claim. Essentially, he married her and he ought to keep an eye on her!
Where the BFP for value rules come in is to protect an innocent person who had something stolen from him, and then resold by the theif and sold to a 3rd party who had knowledge that it wasn't the thief's property to sell. Such a buyer is
not a BFP for value (either because he had notice, or possibly because he didn't give value for the item in question, as when the theif gives it to the 3rd party as a gift). In those cases, the original owner has superior rights to the 3rd party. But if the 3rd party takes without notice of the original owner's rights (i.e., he reasonably believes that the item in question is the thief's to sell), and gives value (i.e, normally by paying for it, however little), then such a 3rd party would have superior rights in the item even as compared to the original owner. In other words, when
both the original owner and the innocent 3rd party are "in the right", the BFP for value rule protects the innocent 3rd party because he wasn't in a position to prevent the situation (whereas arguably the original owner was because he could have safegaurded the property more carefully).
Back to the husband/wife situation. The husband would be hard pressed to be able to demonstrate that his wife had "stolen" his property, assuming away some other things like a legal separation order or the like. For him to win even against a 3rd party who bought the items
with notice that they were his and not hers, he would have to be able to show that she stold them and that the buyer knew this. And since husband and wife are considered "one and the same" for most simple contracts, most judges wouldn't even entertain the argument absent some other showing of evil intent on her part. In other words since husband and wife are one, she can't really steal from him, and both have full rights in everything either of them owns.
