Respond to the Ethical and Public Policy issue on page 159. Tennessee is one of the states that still recognizes tenancy by the entirety.

Transcribed Image Text:

ETHICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES Should the Tenancy by the Entirety Be Abolished? The tenancy by the entirety was created historically under English common law because, once married, a husband and wife were considered to be one person or entity, known as the unity of person. Therefore, third parties, such as creditors, could not sever this concurrent interest. The idea of married couples as one entity is now an archaic doctrine, yet half the states still recognize it in some form. Thus, spousal property owned under the tenancy by the entirety is protected from the prop- creditors of one of the spouses, thereby preventing creditors from seizing the erty to satisfy a legitimate debt of one of the spouses. When creditors are forced to write off bad debts, it can drive up the price of borrowing money and adversely affect others seeking loans and possibly the economy. For this and other reasons, England abolished tenancies by the entirety in 1925. Of the 22 states that still rec- ognize tenancy by the entirety, 9 have modified the concept by allowing the credi- tor a claim to seize the debtor spouse's one-half share when the tenancy ends due to death or divorce.46 Since the original purpose of tenancy by the entirety owner- ship has long passed and it does affect creditor rights and perhaps the price of capital, is it still a morally correct public policy to allow this type of concurrent interest? ETHICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES Should the Tenancy by the Entirety Be Abolished? The tenancy by the entirety was created historically under English common law because, once married, a husband and wife were considered to be one person or entity, known as the unity of person. Therefore, third parties, such as creditors, could not sever this concurrent interest. The idea of married couples as one entity is now an archaic doctrine, yet half the states still recognize it in some form. Thus, spousal property owned under the tenancy by the entirety is protected from the prop- creditors of one of the spouses, thereby preventing creditors from seizing the erty to satisfy a legitimate debt of one of the spouses. When creditors are forced to write off bad debts, it can drive up the price of borrowing money and adversely affect others seeking loans and possibly the economy. For this and other reasons, England abolished tenancies by the entirety in 1925. Of the 22 states that still rec- ognize tenancy by the entirety, 9 have modified the concept by allowing the credi- tor a claim to seize the debtor spouse's one-half share when the tenancy ends due to death or divorce.46 Since the original purpose of tenancy by the entirety owner- ship has long passed and it does affect creditor rights and perhaps the price of capital, is it still a morally correct public policy to allow this type of concurrent interest?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The issue of whether tenancy by the entirety should be abolished raises ethical and public policy considerations regarding property ownership creditor ... View the full answer