Burnette Avakian v. Citibank, N.A., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23159

Burnette and Norair Avakian owned and lived in a homestead in Mississippi and originally had a properly executed deed of trust securing a loan.
Citibank refinanced the loan; the new note listed only Norair as debtor. Citibank required deeds of trust—Norair signed one deed; Burnette signed an identical deed the next day.
The two deeds did not reference one another, were not attached, and were recorded as separate but back-to-back instruments; the parties agreed contemporaneously to the refinancing.
After default and Norair’s death, Burnette sued to block Citibank’s foreclosure in state court; Citibank removed to federal court and sought summary judgment.
The district court found the Avakians were living together when signing and held the deeds void under Miss. Code § 89-1-29 (requiring spouse’s signature on homestead encumbrances). Citibank appealed.
The Fifth Circuit concluded Mississippi law would likely treat the two identical, contemporaneously executed deeds as one integrated deed signed by both spouses, reversed the district court, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two separate but identical deeds signed by spouses satisfy Miss. Code § 89-1-29	Burnette: statute requires both spouses sign the same instrument; separate instruments are invalid	Citibank: statute requires spouse to "sign," not necessarily the same physical document; contemporaneous identical instruments can be integrated	Court: Likely valid — separate contemporaneous identical deeds can be construed as one integrated deed signed by both spouses
Whether the lack of cross-reference/attachment or separate recording defeats integration	Burnette: absence of reference/attachment and separate records shows they are distinct and thus invalid	Citibank: integration doctrine and cases (GMAC, Sullivan) allow separate documents executed contemporaneously as one instrument despite lack of attachment or cross-reference	Court: Recording and physical separation do not prevent integration; contemporaneity and identical terms support treating them as one deed
Whether equitable defenses (waiver, estoppel, ratification, laches, subrogation) can save an allegedly defective deed	Burnette: if deed is void under statute, equitable defenses cannot validate it	Citibank: even if form defective, equitable doctrines could permit enforcement	Court: Did not reach equitable theories because it held the deed valid as an integrated instrument

Welborn v. Lowe, 504 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 1987) (instrument failing § 89-1-29 is void and inoperative)
Duncan v. Moore, 7 So. 221 (Miss. 1890) (dicta endorsing that separate contemporaneous signed instrument may show spouse's written consent)
United Miss. Bank v. GMAC Mortg. Co., 615 So. 2d 1174 (Miss. 1993) (spouse’s signatures on attachments integral to deed satisfied § 89-1-29)
Sullivan v. Mounger, 882 So. 2d 129 (Miss. 2004) (separate contemporaneous documents executed as part of same transaction may be construed together)
Sullivan v. Protex Weatherproofing, Inc., 913 So. 2d 256 (Miss. 2005) (documents can form an integrated transaction absent explicit integration clause)
Craddock v. Brinkley, 671 So. 2d 662 (Miss. 1996) (subsequent, noncontemporaneous instrument does not validate earlier defective deed)