We are both on the deed as of 2005. She took the loan and the bank knew we were married but had me sign nothing. Similar case in Pennsylvania where the woman was on the loan but then got taken off of the loan and she got the house free and clear
I've given you the best information I can.
The place to make YOUR argument is before a judge in Michigan.
But, I'd seriously rethink the whole idea.
Your argument is not only flawed, but potentially could be seen as perpetrating or conspiring to commit fraud.
A person can only GIFT you (or in this case QUIT CLAIM DEED you) their LEGAL interest in a property.
Unfortunately, your wife owned nothing, other than a mortgage.
Her equity was small, or had never accrued.
As far as a wife's ability to contract, that's long been established.
Women (a wife) aren't required to seek their husband's approval to obtain a loan.
Your wife didn't need your permission to undertake the mortgage.
Nor, would you have needed hers.
I'm not sure why YOU think a quit claim deed (some archaic form of land bequeath or entitlement) is an escape valve for you to inherit a home, encumbered by a huge mortgage, (the lender takes NOTHING but a piece of paper), just because you were allegedly given a "quit claim" deed?
I'm sure your argument would also puzzle a court.
But, file some motions, and have at it, sir.
Quit claim deeds are notorious in their unreliability.
That's why they often get challenged, as a well as the circumstances under which the quit claim was given.
Good luck, but I'd be very careful in fostering your premise beyond the "what if" stage of personal thinking.
As a legal argument, it holds no weight.
Doesn't Tenants by the entirety state that creditors can't put a lean on the property. The loan was taken on after the date of quite claim of the deed. The lean should of never been on the property.
What you're proposing has long been addressed in the common law, and in various state statutes.
A Tenancy by the Entirety permits spouses to own property as a single legal entity.
Under a tenancy by the entirety, creditors of an individual spouse may not attach and sell the interest of a debtor spouse: only creditors of the couple may attach and sell the interest in the property owned by tenancy by the entirety.
The last sentence above, notwithstanding, a lien-holder is more than a mere creditor.
A lienholder (bank, mortgage holder) has the ability to cloud the title/deed to the property.
Don't confuse the holder of the note with an unsecured creditor.
The property was under cloud of a lien when she obtained the mortgage.
Hence, your argument is defective on its face, and if you aren't careful, you could reap some unintended, negative consequences of such a stance.
A very important difference between a tenancy by the entirety, and a joint tenancy (tenancy in common) is that a tenant by the entirety may not sell or give away his interest in the property without the consent of the other tenant.
Upon the death of one of the spouses, the deceased spouse's interest in the property devolves to the surviving spouse, and not to other heirs of the deceased spouse.
This is called the right of survivor-ship.
The above principle has NOTHING to do with allowing one to avoid a debt.
A secured debt unpaid, will forever remain a secured debt, unpaid.
It isn't extinguished upon the passing of the debtor, or in this case, your spouse.
