Also known as: tenancy by the entireties · tenancy by entireties · entireties tenancy by · tenancy in entireties · tenancy by entirety · estate by entireties
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A concurrent estate in real or personal property held exclusively by a husband and wife. The estate features an indestructible right of survivorship and generally shields the property from unilateral severance by one spouse or from the claims of that spouse's individual creditors.
Elliot Edmonds and Ella Emerson, a married couple, purchased a crane as tenants by the entireties and rented it to third parties while splitting gross receipts equally. They maintained completely separate construction businesses with distinct clients, employees, and accounts. When a dispute arose over whether their arrangement created a partnership, the court held that their tenancy by the entireties in the crane did not by itself establish one.
Kokichi Endo and Ume Endo held their home as tenants by the entireties. After an accident exposing Kokichi to liability, the couple conveyed the property to their sons without consideration. Judgment creditors later sought to set aside the transfer, but the tenancy by the entireties protected the property from the husband's individual creditors until his death.
On November 30, 1968, Masako Sawada and Helen Sawada were injured when struck by a motor vehicle operated by Kokichi Endo. 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. On June 17, 1969, Helen Sawada filed her complaint for damages against Kokichi Endo. Masako Sawada filed her suit against him on August 13, 1969. The complaint and summons in each case was served on Kokichi Endo on October 29, 1969. By deed dated July 26, 1969, Kokichi Endo and Ume Endo conveyed the Wahiawa property to their sons Samuel H. Endo and Toru Endo. The deed was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on December 17, 1969. No consideration was paid by the grantees. 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. Kokichi Endo and Ume Endo continued to reside on the premises. 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. At the same time Masako Sawada was awarded judgment on her complaint in the amount of $16,199.28. Ume Endo died on January 29, 1971. 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. The trial court refused to set aside the conveyance, and the Sawadas appealed.
View caseA husband and wife held frozen preembryos under an agreement that referenced their tenancy by the entireties in other marital assets. Upon divorce the wife sought to implant the preembryos, but the court treated the tenancy by the entireties framework as preserving equal spousal control that could not be overridden by one party's unilateral wishes after separation.
A.Z. and B.Z. married in 1977. For the first two years they resided in Virginia, where both served in the armed forces. They underwent fertility testing after difficulties conceiving. The wife suffered an ectopic pregnancy that resulted in miscarriage and removal of her left fallopian tube. In 1980 the couple moved to Maryland for a year of additional fertility treatment that produced no pregnancy. The wife transferred to Massachusetts in 1988 while the husband remained in Maryland for schooling. He joined her in Massachusetts in 1991. After arriving in Massachusetts the wife began IVF treatments at a clinic. The couple first attempted a GIFT procedure on November 6, 1988, which produced another ectopic pregnancy and removal of the wife's remaining fallopian tube. They then pursued IVF from 1988 through 1991. Each time before egg retrieval the couple signed a clinic consent form. They executed seven such forms in total, the last in August 1991. On every form the wife wrote that the preembryos should be returned to her for implantation should the couple separate. The husband usually signed the forms while blank and before the wife completed the disposition language. The 1991 treatment produced twin daughters born in 1992, and two vials of preembryos were frozen for possible later use. In spring 1995, before the couple separated, the wife thawed one vial and had a preembryo implanted without informing the husband. He learned of the procedure from an insurance notice. Relations deteriorated, the wife obtained a protective order against the husband, the couple separated, and the husband filed for divorce. At the time of divorce one vial containing four frozen preembryos remained in storage. The husband moved for a permanent injunction prohibiting the wife from using the preembryos. The Probate and Family Court bifurcated the preembryos issue from the divorce action and held a hearing at which both parties were represented by counsel. The probate judge found the consent form unenforceable because of changed circumstances since 1991 and balanced the parties' interests, granting the husband a permanent injunction. The Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion. On February 8, 2000, it issued an order affirming the Probate and Family Court judgment, with this opinion to follow.
View caseNo. The Uniform Partnership Act expressly provides that tenancy by the entireties does not by itself establish a partnership even when co-owners share profits from the property.
Generally no. The estate protects the property from the claims of one spouse's individual creditors because neither spouse can unilaterally alienate or encumber the interest.
Tenancy by the entireties cannot be severed unilaterally by one spouse and is not subject to individual creditor claims, whereas a standard joint tenancy allows severance by conveyance and exposes each interest to the tenant's creditors.
No. The Code expressly states that its provisions on multiple-party accounts and powers of appointment do not affect the law governing tenancy by the entireties.
…Sawadas appeal. I The determinative question in this case is, 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. This issue is one of first impression in this jurisdiction. A brief review of the present state of the tenancy by the…