Also known as: tenant by the entireties · tenancy by the entireties · tenancy by the entirety · tenancy by entirety
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A concurrent estate in real property held by a married couple as a single legal unit. The spouses together own an indivisible interest that carries an indestructible right of survivorship. Neither spouse may unilaterally alienate or encumber the property while the marriage and the tenancy remain intact.
Tyler Taylor and Tamara Tan held their home as tenants by the entireties. While divorce proceedings were pending Tyler executed a will devising the house to his brother. Tyler died before the divorce became final. Title passed automatically to Tamara by operation of law.
Tessa Takahashi and Theodore Tucker received a deed granting land to them as husband and wife and the heirs of their bodies. The jurisdiction recognizes estates tail and permits tenancy by the entirety. The conveyance created an estate tail held by Tessa and Theodore as tenants by the entireties.
Talia Torres and Tiana Tan, a married couple, bought a crane as tenants by the entireties and rented it to third parties. They split gross rental receipts equally but maintained separate construction businesses. Their arrangement did not create a partnership under the Uniform Partnership Act.
Thunderbolt Motors conveyed property to Tyler Taylor and Tamara Tan as husband and wife together with their issue. The state recognizes tenancy by the entirety as a permitted concurrent form. The deed satisfied the statutory conditions for creating the estate.
Tundra Resources obtained a federal tax lien against one spouse who held real property with his wife as tenants by the entireties. The Supreme Court held that the spouse's rights in the tenancy constituted property reachable by the lien.
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.
View caseKokichi Endo and Ume Endo conveyed their home held as tenants by the entireties to their sons after an accident. Creditors later obtained judgments against Kokichi. The court set aside the conveyance as fraudulent because it removed the asset from the reach of creditors.
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 caseNo. While the tenancy remains intact neither spouse holds a severable share that can be transferred or encumbered without the other's consent. Any attempted unilateral act is ineffective against the surviving spouse's right of survivorship.
Supporting sources
No. The tenancy and its survivorship feature continue until the marriage ends by divorce decree or death. A will executed during pending divorce proceedings cannot override the survivorship right if the spouse dies while still married.
Supporting sources
No. The Uniform Partnership Act expressly provides that joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or tenancy by the entireties does not establish a partnership even when the co-owners share profits from the property.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rights of a tenant by the entirety constitute property or rights to property under federal tax lien statutes even though state law may protect the property from unilateral creditor action.
Supporting sources
…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…