PROVIDENCE — In a divorce case, a Pawtucket man is claiming he can fire his wife’s lawyer and sign his wife’s name on a contract to sell the couple’s house because a little-known section of state law says a husband may act as his wife’s attorney or agent.

But a Family Court magistrate has rejected the man’s attempt to dismiss his wife’s lawyer. And the woman’s lawyer says it’s “absurd” to think a husband can act on his wife’s behalf without her permission.

The dispute between Daniel R. Chaput, 59, of 110 Woodside Ave., Pawtucket, and Denise Chaput, 55, of 96 Arch St., Pawtucket, is being magnified because the the Steel Horse International Trust, which signed a contract to buy the couple’s house, filed a federal lawsuit and is intervening in the divorce case, saying it has a valid contract and is relying on that section of state law.

The Journal learned of the dispute through a news release bearing the headline “Rhode Island decision may affect Divorce and Family Court Nationwide.” The trust’s lawyer and Daniel Chaput are listed as contacts.

“What makes this case so unusual is that Steel Horse’s claim arises from an old forgotten Rhode Island law that grants a husband authority to act as attorney and/or agent for his wife,” the news release says.

A chapter of state law entitled called “Married Women’s Rights” includes a section that says, “The wife may act as agent or attorney of her husband, and the husband may act as the agent or attorney for his wife.”

Daniel Chaput says he relied on that section when he signed his name and his wife’s name on a contract to sell the house at 110 Woodside Ave. to the Tennessee-based trust, which is now trying to enforce the agreement to buy the house for $225,000.

But court records show that in March, Family Court General Magistrate John J. O’Brien Jr. appointed a lawyer to act as a commissioner to sell the house. While Daniel Chaput had presented two letters of intent and offers to purchase the house, O’Brien said he found those offers to be “questionable at best because of their conditional terms.”

Also, Denise Chaput’s lawyer, Albert J. Mainelli, disagrees with the way Daniel Chaput and Steel Horse are interpreting that section of the law. “The law means that if a wife so chooses, she can delegate her husband to be her agent or lawyer, and vice versa,” he said. But in this case, he said, “It’s pretty clear she doesn’t want him representing her.”

Mainelli said, “The idea that a husband can act for her without her authority is absurd.” For example, he said, “If a husband has a falling-out with his wife and there are nine kids in the house, would he be able to sell the house right out from under her? It’s absurd.”

Steel Horse’s lawyer, Damon M. D’Ambrosio, disagrees with Mainelli’s interpretation of the law. “The statute says ‘may act’ and doesn’t specify who makes that determination,” he said. “It is Steel Horse’s position that a fair reading of the statute is that when a party may act, it is that party that decides under what circumstances the power of attorney may be exercised.”

Daniel Chaput also said Mainelli is misreading the law. “It recognizes that two are one,” he said of the law. “It’s a cross-collateral power of attorney.”

So could Denise Chaput serve as her husband’s lawyer and sign for her husband?

“Technically speaking, yes,” Daniel Chaput said.

D’Ambrosio agreed, saying, “What’s good for the goose …”

Both D’Ambrosio and Mainelli said they know of no other cases in which this legal argument has been made.

The news release states, “Legal analysts and attorneys in Rhode Island and across the nation are watching this case as the implications could undermine the validity of hundreds of thousands of divorce decrees and the property distributions made in those cases.”

But Mainelli said he doubts that. “I think he [Chaput] is the only one watching it. You might be the second,” Mainelli told a reporter.

When asked who the legal analysts are, Daniel Chaput said, “I have different people throughout the country. Some deal with canon law. But I would need their permission to give you their names.”

Chaput, who said he is involved in consulting and ministry work, is acting as his own lawyer in the divorce case.

In June, he tried to have Mainelli dismissed as his wife’s lawyer. In a “Judicial Notice” of “Dismissal of Attorney for Cause,” he said, “Mr. Mainelli is herein demanded to cease and desist his representation of my wife and return to her any funds received from her. Whereas Mr. Mainelli attempts to re-present my wife, I as her husband and true agent/attorney in fact have the sole and only authority to present [sic] my wife. My authority being recognized and secured of Holy Writ, Common Law and the Laws of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.”

Magistrate O’Brien denied his motion.

At the same time, O’Brien granted Steel Horse’s motion to intervene in the case, but he denied Steel Horse’s request to vacate all the orders the court has made since Daniel Chaput signed a contract with the trust in November 2006.

Steel Horse’s executive director and trustee, R.W. Lowder, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Providence in June, seeking to enforce its contract to buy the house. But on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William E. Smith granted a motion to dismiss the suit, saying no objection had been filed to the motion. D’Ambrosio said, “We will appeal.”

The Family Court court case continues, and the next hearing is set for Aug. 8.

D’Ambrosio said Steel Horse has a valid contract with the Chaputs. “How do you void a contract when one of the parties is not present?” he asked. “That’s the outrage from my client’s viewpoint.”

Mainelli said, “My response is they don’t have a valid contract. My client never signed anything or knew about it. She’s the joint owner.”

efitzpat@projo.com