- 16 -
expenses. In addition, in 1987, petitioner transferred his
interest in his primary residence to his wife for nominal
consideration.
Petitioner argues that the transfer of the personal
residence to petitioner's wife was not fraudulent as a matter of
law. Petitioner contends that respondent could not have reached
the property because he held the property with his wife as
tenants by the entirety under the laws of the State of Arkansas
prior to the transfer. Under Arkansas law, a judgment creditor
of one spouse cannot force the partition and sale of property
held by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety. Lowe v.
Morrison, 289 Ark. 459, 460-461, 711 S.W.2d 833, 834 (1986).
However, a debtor-spouse's interest in an entirety estate and
entitlement to one-half the rents and profits from the property
may be executed upon to satisfy a judgment against the debtor-
spouse, subject to the nondebtor-spouse's right of survivorship.
Morris v. Solesbee, 48 Ark. App. 123, 127, 892 S.W.2d 281, 283
(1995). Petitioner's transfer of the personal residence held as
tenants by the entirety to his wife for nominal consideration can
be fraudulent under Arkansas law. Under Arkansas law, a Federal
tax lien filed to collect a spouse's separate tax liability is a
lien against the spouse's interest in the entirety estate.
Petitioner attempted to remove his residence from the reach of
respondent by quitclaiming his interest in the entirety estate to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011