12 Del. Ch. 188, 109 A. 418 (1920)
The complainants are the owners of two parcels of land, one conveyed to them as husband and wife “as tenants by the entirety and not as tenants in common,” and the other conveyed to them as husband and wife, without stating whether they were to hold as tenants by entireties, or as joint tenants, or tenants in common.1
A judgment was recovered against the husband.2 The complainants executed a joint deed conveying the property so held.3
In this case is presented for the first time in Delaware the question whether a husband and wife holding land as tenants by entireties can by their joint deed convey the property so held clear of a judgment recovered against the husband.4 The case came before the Chancellor in the Delaware Court of Chancery.5
Whether a husband and wife holding land as tenants by entireties can by their joint deed convey the property so held clear of a judgment recovered against the husband?6
Under Delaware law an estate by the entireties is characterized by indivisibility and unseverability during the joint lives of the spouses.7 A judgment against one spouse does not create a lien on the property that can be enforced during the marriage because neither spouse can unilaterally alienate any interest and the married women's property acts exempt the wife's interest from the husband's debts.8 Consequently a joint deed executed by both spouses conveys the entire estate to the grantee free and clear of any claim by the husband's creditors.9 This rule derives from the unique features of the tenancy by the entireties which differs from other forms of co-ownership such as tenancies in common or joint tenancies and from the policy of protecting the wife's separate interest in the property.
Yes. The facts establish that the complainants hold the land as tenants by the entireties with one deed expressly creating that estate and the other doing so by operation of law under Delaware precedent.10 A judgment was recovered against the husband alone yet the estate's indivisibility prevents the judgment from attaching as a lien during the spouses' joint lives. The complainants' execution of a joint deed therefore transfers title without the encumbrance of the judgment as any contrary rule would improperly subject the wife's interest to the husband's creditors in violation of the married women's statutes.11 This application aligns with the principles recognized in other jurisdictions that have considered the same question and protects the fundamental characteristics of the entireties estate.
The Chancellor reasoned from the established facts that the husband possesses an interest during coverture but that interest remains inseparable from the wife's corresponding interest.12 Because the married women's statutes free her estate from the husband's control and from liability for his debts any lien arising from the judgment would curtail her freedom to convey.13 The joint deed executed by both spouses therefore passes title clear of the judgment.14 The indivisibility of the estate precludes partition or unilateral alienation and the creditor receives no special protection when the debt arose after the estate was created.
Application of the rule to the specific facts confirms that the two parcels were held in the required form of tenancy. The judgment stood solely against the husband. The joint deed was executed by both owners. Under these circumstances the conveyance removes any possible claim of the husband's creditors and supports entry of a decree for specific performance.
The joint deed executed by the complainants conveys their title to the land clear and discharged of the judgments against the husband.15