100%(6)6 out of 6 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 35 - 37 out of 39 pages.
This group has been abrogatedGROUP IIThe interest of the debtor spouse in the estate may besold or levied upon for his or her separate debts, subjectto the other persons contingent right of survivorshipoIt is subject to the possessory rights of one half andthe survivorship rights. They could use half and ifshe kicks off first and the debts are his then they getthe whole thing. If he kicks off first and she survivesshe gets the whole thing. oThis is a gamble that the debtor is going to outlive theother spouse. oYou can get use and enjoyment but subject to theright of survivorship. A potential sacrificial sale, and in essence might no getthe value of the propertyGROUP IIIAn attempted conveyance by either spouse is wholly void, and the estate may not be subjected to the separate debts of one spouse only.oFlorida is in group 3.oThat’s the majority jurisdictionGROUP IVThe contingent right of survivorship appertaining to either spouse is separately alienable by him and attachable by his creditors during the marriage. oVery similar to group 2 but it has a little twistoDon’t get anything present, they attach the right of 35
oUnilateral conveyance is not allowedoTenancy by the entirety property is immune to the creditors of the other spouse.Doesn’t give enough credence to the creditor’s rightsand to the injured party ability to be made whole.survivorship banking that the innocent spouse will kick off first and only then will they have an ownership interestoThey attach something that might be in the future; they gamble that the bad spouse will survive.You are gambling and hoping that the right ofsurvivorship vest and gambling that the property valuemay not be the same at the timeDifference between Group II and IV? You can’t levy on the present interest in 4; all you goafter and can attach is the right of survivorship if in essence it attaches.The court decided that the conveyance from P to their sons was not a fraud, because P was notable to attach the property in the first instance.United States v. 1500 Lincoln AvenueGovernment seeks forfeiture of interest from innocent owner who owns title by tenants by theentirety since husband was found guilty of prescription drug fillingFacts: Government seeks forfeiture of the pharmacy after Mr. Bernstein was arrested forconducting illegal diversion of various pharmaceutical drugs in the pharmacy. Mrs. Bernsteinand Mr. Bernstein owned the property as tenants by the entirety. Mrs. Bernstein had no ideaabout the actions of Mr. Bernstein on the property.FIRST ATTEMPT: The government’s first position is that the property is severable because ofthe husband’s illegal use of the property and converts it into a tenancy in common and thereforethey can go after it.oThat results in a dismissal because if you look at the property as hers and she isthe innocent owner then the property is immune.