tenancy by entirety

In 1988, the Internal Revenue Service assessed $482,446 in unpaid income tax liabilities against Don Craft for his failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1979 through 1986. At that time, Don Craft and his wife, respondent Sandra L. Craft, owned a piece of real property in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as tenants by the entirety. After notice of the federal tax lien was filed, the Crafts jointly executed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer Don Craft's interest in the property to Sandra Craft for one dollar. When Sandra Craft later attempted to sell the property, a title search revealed the lien. The IRS agreed to release the lien to allow the sale on the condition that half of the net proceeds be held in escrow pending determination of the Government's interest. Sandra Craft then brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to quiet title to the escrowed proceeds. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Government. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the tax lien did not attach to the property under Michigan law and remanded for consideration of the Government's fraudulent conveyance claim. On remand, the District Court found that the conveyance itself was not fraudulent but that the use of nonexempt funds to pay the mortgage constituted a fraudulent act, and it awarded the IRS a share of the proceeds. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that determination on the lien issue as law of the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether Don Craft had a separate interest in the entireties property to which the federal tax lien attached.

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.