## Facts

- RBS Citizens, N.A. made commercial loans to Providence Chain Co., a Rhode Island corporation owned by Jan M. Ouhrabka.
- In August 2006, Ouhrabka executed a personal guaranty for the company’s indebtedness to RBS.
- During the loan process, Ouhrabka provided a financial statement listing Vermont real property owned with his wife as tenants by the entirety.
- Providence Chain entered receivership, and its assets were expected to satisfy only a portion of the more than $15 million owed to RBS.
- RBS sued Ouhrabka on the guaranty for the remaining unsecured balance and sought a prejudgment writ of attachment on his Vermont real estate, including the property held by the entirety with his nondebtor spouse.

## Issues

1. Whether a creditor of only one spouse may obtain a prejudgment writ of attachment against real property held by the spouses as tenants by the entirety when the other spouse is not liable on the debt.
2. Whether the court should modify or abandon Vermont’s common-law tenancy-by-the-entirety rule based on modern marital-property and creditor-rights policy arguments.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the prejudgment writ of attachment as to the tenancy-by-the-entirety property.
- The court held that, under Vermont common law, a creditor of one spouse cannot attach property held by the spouses as tenants by the entirety when the other spouse is a nondebtor.
- The court rejected the argument that prejudgment attachment should be permitted even if post-judgment execution would not be, because the result would burden the nondebtor spouse’s undivided interest.
- The court declined to substantially alter or abolish tenancy by the entirety, indicating that major changes to creditor access to entirety property are for the legislature.

## Legal Principles

- Tenancy by the entirety in Vermont treats spouses as holding a single, inseverable estate during marriage; neither spouse has a separate, divisible interest subject to the other spouse’s individual creditors.
- A provisional remedy such as prejudgment attachment cannot reach property in which the debtor spouse lacks an independently attachable interest; otherwise, the remedy would impair the nondebtor spouse’s rights.
- Courts will generally preserve established property-law rules absent legislative direction, particularly where modification would significantly change the creditor–spousal-protection balance.

## Conclusion

Vermont law bars a creditor of only one spouse from obtaining a prejudgment writ of attachment against real property held by spouses as tenants by the entirety, and any significant revision of that rule must come from legislative action rather than judicial change in an attachment proceeding.


RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Ouhrabka, 190 Vt. 251, 30 A.3d 1266 (Vt. 2011)