|
the contracts of the other is disqualifying, but
<br />these c, asec are ri. et relevant In Minnesota. See
<br />Nickels v. £yle, 8 Idaho 589, 70 Pac. 401 (1902);
<br />School District v. '£tbby, 135 Wash. 233, 237
<br />Pac. 505 (1925}.
<br />
<br /> Circumstances may, however, make a contract
<br />of this kind invalid. Thus, in Woodward v. Wakefield.
<br />236 Mich. 417, 210 N.W. 322 {1926), a contract
<br />was held void where the mayor acted as' his wife's
<br />agent in selling her real estate to the city. He pre-
<br />pared the contract, participated in the required
<br />vote, and endorsed the note securing the mortgage.
<br />Likewise, in Stuff v. Borough of Elmer, 75 N.J.L.
<br />443, 67 All. 1059 (1907}, a contract for the sale
<br />of property to the borough was held 'void where
<br />the council member paid taxes on the property
<br />from his own money, conducted the negotiation
<br />for sale, and fixed the price even though the
<br />property was' in his wife's name. in Drake v.
<br />CiO, of Elizabeth, 69 N.J.L. 190, 54 Atl. 248
<br />(1903), it was held that the fact that.the wife of
<br />~ councilman is a stockholder is sufficient to
<br />invalidate a contract with a company. This is
<br />probably a more extreme view than courts would
<br />genera!ly take today.
<br />
<br /> Since the 'interest of the council member
<br />under the statutory code section on conflict of
<br />~i~terest may be either direct or indirect, it is easy
<br />to see that a contract with the spouse of a council
<br />member may in many circumstances involve an
<br />infraction of the law. The Attorney General. in
<br />such circumstances has construed the law broadly
<br />and tended fo hold such contracts invalid. If the
<br />money earned under the contract is used for the
<br />suFport of the family so that· the council member
<br />derives some benefit from it, the Attorney General
<br />ha., uniformly held that there is an indirect interest'.
<br />on the part of the council member in the contract;
<br />therefore the contraCt is void. See A.G. Op., LMC
<br />130d, June 28, 1928; A.G. Op., LMC 130d, July
<br />?d-, '!939; A.G. Op.,. LMC 130d, July 13, 1940.
<br />The law gives to the husband or wife various
<br />contingent interests in the spouse's estate. The
<br />Attorney General once held that these interests
<br />alone would be sufficient to bring a contract
<br />with the wife of a municipal official who takes part
<br />in thc making of the contract within the prohibition
<br />of a statute like the present statutory city code
<br />section. (A.G. Op. 1910, No. 579.)In more recent
<br />opinions, however, the Attorney General has taken
<br />the pesition that each case turns on its individual
<br />facts; the mere fact of the relationship does not
<br />affect the validity of the contract. See, for example,
<br />A.G. Op. 90-B, I_MC 130d, April 5, 1955.
<br />
<br /> Most of the cases and the Attorney General's
<br />Opinions on this general subject have concerned
<br />contracts with the wife of a municipal official.
<br />When the municipal official is a woman whose
<br />husband is interested in the contract, the case is
<br />stronger for finding the contract invalid; Under
<br />
<br /> existing law, the husband is liable for his wife's
<br /> support (M.5. 519.05); however, the marriage
<br /> contract imposes no liability on the wife to sup-
<br /> port her husband. (A.G. Op. 339-N, Feb. 26, 1948.)
<br /> It is not difficult, therefore, to find a personal
<br /> financial interest 'by the woman official In the
<br /> contract of her husband without proof of more
<br /> than the marriage relationship. In a recent letter '
<br /> opinion to the Buhl City Attorney,,it was ruled
<br /> that a prohibited interest in contracts does not
<br /> necessarily arise upon election of the spouse of
<br /> a city employee to the office of mayor (a member
<br /> · of the council). The opinion carefully avoids any
<br /> ruling as to future action by the council with . .
<br /> respect to the existing employment relationship.- ".
<br /> (A.G. Op., LMC 130d, Dec. 9, 1976.) Were the .
<br /> proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution in"
<br /> effect, the husband's contracts might be treated
<br /> the same as the wife's contracts for purposes of
<br /> applying conflict of interest laws. In that.case,
<br /> the present distinction between husband and wife
<br /> in support responsibilities might have to .be abol-
<br /> ished. See "
<br /> Note, Effectofequal rights amendment
<br /> on Minnesota law", 57 Minn Law Review 771,
<br /> 776-781 (1973). Under existing law, if it can be
<br /> shown that the earnings under the wife's contract
<br /> are used by the wife individually and not for the
<br /> support of the family~ it would appear from the
<br />· cases in other states that a contract with the city
<br /> probably would not be invalidated simply because
<br /> her husband was a council member, if facts tend
<br /> to show otherwise, the-contract will be of doubtful
<br /> legality. The Attorney General has repeatedly
<br /> advised local governing bodies to avoid the sus- .
<br /> picion and criticism that would result from such
<br /> a contract. - .. --- .'
<br />
<br /> Effect of Contracts Made in Violation of UnlawfUl
<br /> Interest Statutes. -: '.'
<br />
<br /> Where a city enters into a contract with'a
<br /> council member which is beyond the corporate
<br /> powers as tO subject matter, no city iiab'.,lity by
<br /> virtue of the contract will attach no matter what.
<br /> the form of suit or action for enforcement may be.
<br /> See City of Chaska v. ffedman, 53 Minn. 59_5, 55
<br /> N.W. 737 (1893}. 'Even where the contract is
<br />'otherwise within the corporate powers, any con-
<br /> tract made in violation of the unlawful interest
<br /> statutes is void as a contract and as such the
<br /> 'contract itself cannot be the basis of a cause of
<br /> action' or defense. See Curriev. School District
<br /> No. 26, 35 Minn. 163, 27 N.W. 933 {1886};.
<br /> B]eltand-v. City of Mankato, 112 Minn. 24, 127
<br /> N.W. 397 (1910}.. The municipatity may be eh-.
<br /> joined at the instance of a' taxpayer from per-
<br /> forming the illegal contract. Cf. Sinclair v. Winona '
<br /> County, 23 Minn. 404 (1877}; Will~arns v. National
<br /> Contracting Co., 160 Minn. 293, 199 N.W. 919 '
<br /> (1924). '-
<br />
<br />The validity of the contract is not affected
<br />
<br />
<br />
|