considered and, if possible, given effect.” Urbaitis, 143 Ill. 2d at 467, 575 N.E.2d at 552. In the deed, Joseph attempted to reserve to himself and Patricia a joint life estate in the property. Although a strict construction of the term "reserve” generally precludes the creation of a life estate in Patricia because she had no interest in the property at the time the deed was executed (Saunders, 373 Ill. at 304, 26 N.E.2d at 127), this interpretation conflicts with the subsequent reference to a "joint life estate *** which shall terminate upon both of their deaths.” This conflict prevents each word in the deed from being given effect and creates an ambiguity to be resolved on remand. (Urbaitis, 143 Ill. 2d at 467, 575 N.E.2d at 552; see also Saunders, 373 Ill. at 309, 26 N.E.2d at 129 (<HOLDING>).) To resolve the ambiguity, the parties’
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 a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding that the statute of frauds applies to a sellers wife holding only a dower interest in the property so the wife must sign the purchase agreement as well as the seller husband holding husband and wife may hold life estates as tenants by the entireties holding that a reservation clause gave a life estate to a spouse pursuant to a deed reserving use of the property to both husband and wife for life even though the husband had no interest in the property