the marriage relation. Sawada v. Endo, 561 P.2d 1291, 1295 (Haw. 1977) (citations omitted). We conclude the theoretical basis of tenancy by entire-ties remains intact and that the estate enjoys continued validity in Vermont. ¶ 10. RBS contends that even if the Rights of Married Women Act did not abrogate the estate of tenancy by entirety, nothing in Vermont law constrains this Court from holding that the creditor of a debtor spouse can attach tenancy-by-entirety property owned jointly by the debtor and a nondebtor spouse. It is true that no Vermont statute explicitly precludes such an outcome. See generally 12 V.S.A. §§ 3251-3410. However, Civil Rule 4.1(a), which governs attachment, explains that: “[i]n any action under these rules (except an action for malicious pr 321, 322 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Town of Corinth v. Emery, 63 Vt. 505, 508, 22
holding that marital property was not attachable for the sole debts of the husband because it was held in tenancy by entirety holding that bank accounts in husbands and wifes joint names were property in a tenancy by the 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 property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety cannot be reached by husbands creditors absent fraud holding that husband and wifes failure to recite marital status in the deed did not defeat tenancy by the entirety