Tenants by the Entirety

[Zigner]

Obviously you know zilch about the conditional rights of a Florida married couple to claim as exempt from execution, real and personal property, held in estates by the entirety, or judgment lien laws, or how the different bankruptcy courts in Florida treat the subject. The result being that you have posted nothing but your usual sophisms.

In the first place the act of perfecting a judgment lien DOES NOT require the judgment to "find the land" (that is, physically locate and identify it as you have irresponsibly stated.) Not in Florida or any other state. And your state of Indiana not excepted. (See: F. S. Section 55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of liens; etc.)

Secondly, in Florida property held in an estate by the entirety is exempt from execution unless the spouses are found to be jointly liable for the underlying indebtedness. Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)

Which, interestingly, is also true in YOUR VERY OWN STATE OF INDIANA! See: Ind. Code § 34-55-10-2(C)(5); see also Diss v. Agri Bus. Int’l, 670 N.E.2d 97, 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (“A tenancy by the entirety is immune from seizure)

Thirdly, your misinformed, equivocal guesswork that should the OP seek creditors relief under the bankruptcy code that the trustee could seize the land for the benefit of unsecured creditors is in stark contrast with the case of Mitchel vs. Brook, Trustee US Bankruptcy Court Middle District Florida Tampa Division Case No. 8:04 bk-11064 PMG as follows:

"If the Debtor and her husband acquired their interest in the Property as tenants by the entireties, then the Debtor's interest may be exempt from her Chapter 7 estate pursuant to §522(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Trustee may not be authorized to sell the property pursuant to §363(h)."

You're assuming that the property was acquired as tenants by the entireties...

 

[thermal]

Thanks for all your responses.

Based on these feedbacks, I am glad that our land is safe (by tenancy by entirety because we bought the land together and both of our names are listed as owners of that land in the county website also. we have no specific shares in that land. We were/are married when we bought that land).

Now, my wife and I will create a tenancy by entirety bank account and will put any money (MONEY-1) that I may earn between now and until the court judgment in favor of the credit card company.

Additional information: few months ago, I transferred some of my money (MONEY-2) to my wife’s account. My wife is willing to move MONEY-2 also into the newly planned tenancy by entirety bank account. In this way, both MONEY-1 and MONEY-2 are also safe even if the court judgment
in favor of the credit card company.

In this way, I think I can keep the land, any money with us currently, and any money that we earn until the court judgment day safe. Please provide your feedback.

I read the following federal law: “Garnishment cannot exceed more than 25% of your net wages or the amount that you take home that is more than 30 times the federal minimum wage per week, whichever is less.”. I am ready to lose 25% of my future wages (if any), after the judgment, to the credit card company.

There is no need to declare bankruptcy.

 

[justalayman]

Additional information: few months ago, I transferred some of my money (MONEY-2) to my wife’s account. My wife is willing to move MONEY-2 also into the newly planned tenancy by entirety bank account. In this way, both MONEY-1 and MONEY-2 are also safe even if the court judgment
in favor of the credit card company.

as I said before, there were statements of judges refusing to give money in accounts designed solely to hide the assets, the protections of a tenancy by the entirety status especially if it is done after the debt has been incurred. That is one of the fraudulent activities I was alluding to previously. If the suit has already been filed or the filing is imminent, I suspect a judge will ignore your attempts to hide your money.



I would have to check but unless you accepted title as tenants by the entirety I suspect it is not a default status. Maybe latigo is still hanging about. He has obviously researched this much more than I have and may have the answer.

 

[Zigner]

I would have to check but unless you accepted title as tenants by the entirety I suspect it is not a default status. Maybe latigo is still hanging about. He has obviously researched this much more than I have and may have the answer.

I was just checking that a moment ago and, apparently, tenants by the entirety is considered the default, even for bank accounts, etc., unless specifically otherwise titled.

 

[latigo]

You're assuming that the property was acquired as tenants by the entireties...

What is your nitpicking assumption?

And please note the "assumption" in the cited BK case of Mitchel vs. Brook:

"IF the debtor and her husband acquired their interest in the property as tenants by the entirety . . . . "

 

[Zigner]

What is your nitpicking assumption?

And please note the "assumption" in the cited BK case of Mitchel vs. Brook:

"IF the debtor and her husband acquired their interest in the property as tenants by the entirety . . . . "

The property could have have been titled in some other manner when it was acquired, the op didn't clarify until later.

 

[thermal]

Thanks for all the responses.