Do you own your property or could you have accidentally signed a document with the inscription „Sae & Separate“? As soon as we saw the words Sae and Separated in the tax file, we contacted the title company to ask them to perform a title search so that we could see exactly what happened when the deed was signed in 2007. As a result of the search for the title, we discovered that when the couple bought the house, the wife was earning an income, but not the husband. That`s why the bank made the husband sign a Sole and Separate agreement when it was concluded. By signing this agreement, he had no idea that he would give up his interest in the property. The husband didn`t know he was signing anything outside the norm because the document was buried in a series of other documents for the degree. When he came to us, ready to sell his house, he had made payments for this land for 12 years. Community contribution and improvement of ownership separation. – Community contributions and improvements to real estate do not affect the separate title deed; the Community right to obtain reimbursement of the amount of the deposit does not alter the character of the ownership of the property from separation to community and the separate property may be transferred by the owner without the accession of a spouse. Hickey v. Griggs, 1987-NMSC-050, 106 N.M. 27, 738 p.2d 899.
The effect of a spouse`s signature on the debt instrument may have no other effect than to oblige his separate property and his share in the personal assets of the Community to repay the obligation set out in the note, since he is not entitled to encumber the common property of its repayment without the accession of the other spouse. Shadden v. Shadden, 1979-NMCA-078, 93 N.M 274, 599 p.2d 1071, cert. denied, 93 N.M 172, 598 P.2d 215; Disagree with Huntington Nat`l Bank v. Sproul, 1993-NMSC-051, 116 N.M 254, 861 p.2d 935. Where the woman did not participate in the mineral act and where the evidence did not show a separate purchase. – If the applicant argued that the former mineral certificate of his predecessor was niged from another because the predecessor`s wife had not participated in the act, the burden of the former scholarship holder, by proving mainly that the interests in question were acquired by separate means and not by public property, were not honoured and that the deed was not respected. Mounsey v. Stahl, 1956-NMSC-110, 62 N.M.
. . .