the question of the effect of an analogous sta y by entirety neither spouse may convey their interest voluntarily, without the consent of the other. However, RBS draws a distinction between voluntary conveyances and involuntary attachments. RBS argues, that while it is beyond dispute that no voluntary conveyance of an interest in entireties property may be made without joinder of both owners, see 27 V.S.A. § 349(a)(3), this Court’s decisions concerning involuntary attachment cannot be read to preclude prejudgment attachment of a debtor spouse’s separate interests for that spouse’s sole debt. ¶ 12. Our past decisions do not distinguish voluntary conveyances of tenancy by entirety property from involuntary attachments. See, e.g., Corey v. McLean, 100 Vt. 90, 91, 135 A. 10, 11 (1926) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, despite RBS’s contention that
holding that marital property was not attachable for the sole debts of the husband because it was held in tenancy by entirety holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband holding that husband and wifes failure to recite marital status in the deed did not defeat tenancy by the entirety holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety cannot be reached by husbands creditors absent fraud