RBS Citizens, N.A. f/k/a Citizens Bank of Rhode Island v. Ouhrabka
190 Vt. 251
| Vt. | 2011Background
- RBS sought prejudgment attachment of Ouhrabka’s tenancy by entirety real estate in Vermont as security for Ouhrabka’s personal guaranty.
- Ouhrabka owns Vermont property as tenants by entirety with his wife; property is jointly held and not separable without both spouses.
- Providence Chain Co., Ouhrabka’s Rhode Island company, went into receivership with substantial debt to RBS.
- Ouhrabka’s personal guaranty for Providence Chain’s debts became unlimited; RBS estimated substantial potential recovery.
- Trial court denied the writ of attachment, ruling that creditors cannot attach tenancy-by-entirety property held by a debtor and a nondebtor.
- RBS appealed the denial as interlocutory matter; court accepted for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a creditor attach tenancy-by-entirety property held with a nondebtor spouse? | RBS argues tenancy by entirety is anachronistic and should permit attachment. | Ouhrabka argues tenancy by entirety remains protected and not attachable by sole creditors. | No; tenancy by entirety remains protected from attachment by one spouse's creditors. |
| Does Vermont's Rights of Married Women Act abolish tenancy by entirety or affect attachability? | RBS contends the act abolishes the estate, allowing attachment. | Ouhrabka contends the estate remains intact and viable. | The tenancy by entirety remains intact and viable in Vermont. |
| Does Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(a) authorize attachment to the extent provided by law? | RBS asserts attachment authority is broad and limited only by law. | Ouhrabka argues common law protections limit attachment. | Attachment is limited by law, and common-law protections apply to tenancy by entirety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Morrell, 128 Vt. 110 (1969) (estate of wife and husband’s interest in tenancy by entirety protected from sole creditors)
- Bellows Falls Trust Co. v. Gibbs, 148 Vt. 633 (1987) (neither spouse can dispose of or encumber tenancy by entirety without joinder)
- Lowell v. Lowell, 138 Vt. 514 (1980) (tenancy by entirety exempt from attachment absent fraud)
- Town of Corinth v. Emery, 63 Vt. 505 (1891) (property held by spouses in tenancy by entirety exempt from attachment for sole debts)
- Sargent v. Platt, 111 Vt. 185 (1940) (marital property doctrine supports protections in tenancy by entirety)
- Laird v. Perry, 74 Vt. 454 (1902) (unity of estate concept distinct from coverture; tenancy by entirety defined by title and seizin)
- Lang v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 289 U.S. 109 (1933) (tenancy by entirety premised on unity of husband and wife; not abolition of the concept)
- Sawada v. Endo, 561 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1977) (theoretical basis of tenancy by entirety remains intact; unity of equals)