A person, while married, may bargain, sell, and convey his or her real and personal property and enter into any contract in reference to the same as if he or she were unmarried.
Source: R.S. p. 455, § 2. L. 1874: p. 185, § 1. G.L. § 1759. G.S. § 2278. R.S. 08: § 4190. C.L. § 5585. CSA: C. 108, § 10. CRS 53: § 90-2-9. C.R.S. 1963: § 90-2-9. L. 2018: Entire part amended, (SB 18-090), ch. 72, p. 638, § 2, effective August 8.
ANNOTATION
At common law, a married woman could convey her estate only by fine and recovery. Keller v. Klopfer, 3 Colo. 132 (1876).
Under the early law, it was provided that to convey her lands a married woman should unite with her husband in making the conveyance, that she should acknowledge the same, separate and apart from her husband, that the officer hearing the acknowledgment should certify that the same was made upon examination separate, apart from, and out of the presence of her husband, and that the contents, meaning, and effect of such deed were by the officer fully explained to the wife. Keller v. Klopfer, 3 Colo. 132 (1876); Nippel v. Hammond, 4 Colo. 211 (1878); Knight v. Lawrence, 19 Colo. 425, 36 P. 242 (1894).
Under present law, the married woman is in law deemed capable of managing her own affairs, and she has the power as well as the right to convey her real estate without let or hindrance from any one, and she requires no protection, and she suffers no restraints, in such matters. Knight v. Lawrence, 19 Colo. 425, 36 P. 242 (1894); Wells v. Caywood, 3 Colo. 487 (1877); Colo. Cent. R. R. v. Allen, 13 Colo. 229, 22 P. 605 (1889).
It was the intention to clothe her with all the rights of a femme sole. Scott v. Mills, 7 Colo. App. 155, 42 P. 1021 (1895).
The wife may make conveyance directly to her husband and the removal in respect to the wife of a disability that is mutual, and springing from the same source, removes it also as to the husband, and the husband may, acting in his own right, convey directly to the wife. Wells v. Caywood, 3 Colo. 487 (1877); O'Connell v. Taney, 16 Colo. 353, 27 P. 888 (1891); Rose v. Otis, 18 Colo. 59, 31 P. 493 (1892); Kellogg v. Kellogg, 21 Colo. 181, 40 P. 358 (1895); Scott v. Mills, 7 Colo. App. 155, 42 P. 1021 (1895); Stramann v. Scheeren, 7 Colo. App. 1, 42 P. 191 (1895); Tuttle v. Shutts, 43 Colo. 534, 96 P. 260 (1908).
In the nature of things and in the legislative mind, the husband and wife both possess the character of a householder and head of a family, at least to the extent to enable either of them owning the home they occupy to designate it as a homestead. McPhee v. O'Rourke, 10 Colo. 301, 15 P. 420 (1887).