Many married couples assume that a joint bank account automatically protects their funds from creditors — especially if it’s labeled as “tenants by the entirety” (TBE). But a recent Florida appellate decision reminds us that not all joint accounts are created equal.
In Loumpos v. Bank One, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1636 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 2, 2024), the Second District Court of Appeal examined whether a joint account between a husband and wife was truly held as TBE and therefore exempt from garnishment by one spouse’s creditor.
The facts were straightforward but legally significant. The husband had opened a bank account in his own name in February. Several months later, in October, he added his wife’s name and checked the box for “joint tenants by the entirety” on the bank’s signature card. When a creditor attempted to garnish the account to collect on the wife’s debt, she argued that the account was protected under Florida’s TBE laws.
The trial court — and later the appellate court — disagreed. The courts found that the account did not meet all six “unities” required under common law to create a valid tenancy by the entirety. These unities are:
- Possession (joint ownership),
- Interest (identical interests in the property),
- Title (the same legal document creating the interests),
- Time (interests begin simultaneously),
- Marriage, and
- Survivorship.
Because the account was originally opened by only one spouse and the wife was added later, the unities of time and title were missing — breaking the chain of protection.
The wife argued that under Beal Bank v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), and section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes, the designation on the signature card should be enough to create a presumption that the account was TBE property. However, the Second District held that neither Beal Bank nor the statute erased the requirement of satisfying the six unities.
The court clarified that Beal Bank did not abrogate the common law; it merely shifted how courts interpret a couple’s intent when the unities are already present. Likewise, section 655.79(1) — which provides that accounts held by husband and wife “shall be considered” TBE unless otherwise specified — did not expressly eliminate the six unities. Florida law presumes that common law rules remain in effect unless the Legislature clearly states otherwise.
This decision creates tension with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, 348 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), where the court concluded that a properly designated signature card was sufficient by itself to establish a TBE account. Recognizing this, the Second District certified conflict with Versace, signaling that the Florida Supreme Court may need to resolve the issue in the future.
Why This Matters for Clients and Advisors
For estate planners and asset protection professionals, Loumpos reinforces that formality matters when creating TBE accounts. Simply labeling an account “tenants by the entirety” may not shield it from a creditor’s reach if it doesn’t satisfy the unities from the moment it’s created.
If a client’s account was originally opened by one spouse and later converted to joint ownership, the safest course may be to open a new account together — ensuring that both spouses acquire identical interests at the same time and through the same instrument.
As Loumpos shows, a misunderstanding in how an account is titled can mean the difference between protecting marital assets — and exposing them to individual creditors.
In short, when it comes to spousal bank accounts in Florida, check the details. The name on the account matters, but how and when it was opened may matter even more.
