Also known as: tenant by the entirety · tenancy by the entirety · tenancies by the entirety · TBE · tenancy by entirety
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A form of concurrent ownership available only to married couples under which each spouse is seized of the whole estate rather than an undivided share. The estate features an indestructible right of survivorship that passes title to the surviving spouse by operation of law upon the death of the other. Neither spouse may unilaterally alienate or encumber the property and individual creditors of one spouse ordinarily cannot reach it.
Thomas Thompson and Tara Tran held their home as tenants by the entirety. While divorce proceedings were pending Thomas executed a will leaving his interest in the house to his sister. Thomas died before the divorce was final. Title passed automatically to Tara by operation of law and the will had no effect on the property.
Tobias Thomas conveyed land to Trevor Tate and Theo Thomas, husband and wife, and the heirs of their bodies. The jurisdiction still recognizes estates tail and tenancies by the entirety. The couple therefore held the estate tail as tenants by the entirety with the designated class of their issue taking the future interest.
Thaddeus Tran conveyed property to Thomas Thompson and Tara Tran, husband and wife, together with their issue. Because the jurisdiction recognizes tenancy by the entirety as a permitted concurrent form, the spouses took the present estate as tenants by the entirety with their issue holding the future interest.
Trevor Tate and Theo Thomas held land as tenants by the entirety. When they later sought to divide the parcel, each possessed the same statutory power to compel partition that an owner of a fee simple absolute held in the same concurrent form would possess in that state.
Tobias Thomas and Thaddeus Tran held an estate tail as tenants by the entirety. Each spouse enjoyed the identical power to compel partition that an owner of a fee simple absolute held in the same concurrent form would possess under the law of the state where the land lay.
Thomas Thompson and Tara Tran owned their home as tenants by the entirety. A judgment creditor of Thomas alone attempted to attach his interest to satisfy the debt. Because the spouses held the property as a single legal entity, the creditor could not reach any separable share.
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. The estate treats the spouses as a single legal entity so neither may alienate or encumber the property without the other's consent.
No. Title passes by operation of law to the surviving spouse and a will cannot dispose of the nonprobate interest.
Ordinarily no. The indivisible marital unit protects the property from unilateral claims of separate creditors absent wrongful conduct.
Each possesses the same statutory power to compel partition that an owner of a fee simple absolute held in the same concurrent form would have in that state.
…49, 60 (1959): It is clear that the Married Women’s Act created an equality between the spouses in New Jersey, insofar as tenancies by the entirety are concerned. If, as we have previously concluded, the husband could alienate his right of survivorship at common law, the wife, by virtue of the act, can alienate her right of…