561 P.2d 1291
On November 30, 1968, Masako Sawada and Helen Sawada were injured when struck by a motor vehicle operated by Kokichi Endo.1 On that date Kokichi Endo owned a parcel of real property in Wahiawa, Oahu, Hawaii, as a tenant by the entirety with his wife Ume Endo.2
On June 17, 1969, Helen Sawada filed her complaint for damages against Kokichi Endo.3 Masako Sawada filed her suit against him on August 13, 1969.4 The complaint and summons in each case was served on Kokichi Endo on October 29, 1969.5
By deed dated July 26, 1969, Kokichi Endo and Ume Endo conveyed the Wahiawa property to their sons Samuel H. Endo and Toru Endo.6 The deed was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on December 17, 1969.7 No consideration was paid by the grantees.8 Both sons were aware at the time of the conveyance that their father had been involved in an accident and that he carried no liability insurance.9 Kokichi Endo and Ume Endo continued to reside on the premises.10
On January 19, 1971, after a consolidated trial on the merits, judgment was entered in favor of Helen Sawada and against Kokichi Endo in the sum of $8,846.46.11 At the same time Masako Sawada was awarded judgment on her complaint in the amount of $16,199.28.12 Ume Endo died on January 29, 1971.13
After being frustrated in their attempts to obtain satisfaction of judgment from the personal property of Kokichi Endo, the Sawadas brought suit to set aside the conveyance.14 The trial court refused to set aside the conveyance, and the Sawadas appealed.15
Whether the interest of one spouse in real property held in tenancy by the entireties is subject to levy and execution by his or her individual creditors?16
Hawaii recognizes the tenancy by the entirety as predicated upon the legal unity of husband and wife.17 Under the Married Women’s Property Acts, neither husband nor wife has a separate divisible interest in the property that can be conveyed or reached by execution.18 The indivisibility of the estate, except by joint action of the spouses, is an indispensable feature of the tenancy by the entirety.19
No. On November 30, 1968, Kokichi Endo owned the Wahiawa property as a tenant by the entirety with Ume Endo.20 The conveyance by deed dated July 26, 1969, was executed by both spouses jointly to their sons. Because the estate by the entirety is not subject to the claims of the creditors of one of the spouses during their joint lives, the conveyance was not in fraud of Kokichi Endo's judgment creditors. The Sawadas obtained judgments on January 19, 1971, after the conveyance, and Ume Endo died shortly after, but the protection applies during the joint lives.
The interest of one spouse in real property held in tenancy by the entireties is not subject to levy and execution by his or her individual creditors.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kidwell found the logic of Appellants' analysis convincing that the Married Women’s Act merely eliminated any inequality in the positions of the spouses.22 He would hold that the separate interest of the husband in entireties property, at least to the extent of his right of survivorship, is alienable by him and subject to attachment by his separate creditors, so that a voluntary conveyance should be set aside where it is fraudulent as to such creditors.23