Spitz v. Williams

WENNER, Judge. Upon this appeal, appellant, Richard Spitz, Jr., asks us to examine an issue which was settled by this court in Watterson v. Edgerly, 40 Md.App. 230 , 388 A.2d 934 (1978). That issue is: “whether a husband may convey his interest in real property, owned by the husband and his wife as tenants by the entireties, to his wife ... so as to shield the husband from his judgment creditors.” 40 Md.App. at 232 , 388 A.2d 934 (footnote omitted). Our answer remains the same; yes.

That is so because the creditor of one spouse “has no lien against the property held as entireties and no standing to complain of a conveyance which prevents the property from falling into his grasp.” Id. at 238 , 388 A.2d 934 (citation omitted). 1 Appellant argues that Watterson is not controlling in this case because Chief Judge Gilbert, in the Watterson opinion, did not consider the effect of Commercial Law Article §§ 15-201 et seq., the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. We note that the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act “has been in force in Maryland since 1920”, Westminster Savings Bank v. Sauble, 183 Md. 628, 632 , 39 A.2d 862 (1944). Therefore, we cannot assume that it was simply overlooked by Chief Judge Gilbert in the Watterson opinion. The short answer to appellant’s contention is that the same rationale would apply to an action brought pursu ⁶⁹⁶ ant to the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act.

Specifically, Commercial Law Article § 15-209