Which States Allow Tenancy by the Entirety Ownership?

Twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia recognize tenancy by the entirety (TBE), making it one of the most powerful yet underutilized asset protection tools available to married couples. Tenancy by entireties treats spouses as a single legal entity, shielding property from creditors of only one spouse—a protection unavailable through joint tenancy or tenants in common.

This guide examines which states recognize tenancy by entireties, what property types qualify, how strong the creditor protections are, and critical requirements for creating valid TBE ownership.

The asset protection value of tenancy by entiretiy lies in a simple principle: if property belongs to the marital unit rather than to either spouse individually, then creditors of just one spouse have nothing to attach. However, the strength of this protection varies dramatically by state, and federal tax liens can pierce TBE following the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in United States v. Craft.

What is tenancy by the entirety and how does it differ from other ownership forms

Tenancy by the entirety is a form of concurrent property ownership available exclusively to married couples that treats both spouses as a single legal owner. Unlike joint tenancy or tenancy in common, TBE creates a “third person” in the eyes of the law—the married couple itself. Neither spouse owns a divisible share; instead, each owns the entire property simultaneously with their spouse.

This legal fiction produces three critical characteristics. First, neither spouse can unilaterally transfer, encumber, or sever the tenancy without the other’s consent. Second, tenancy by entireties includes an automatic right of survivorship, meaning property passes directly to the surviving spouse outside of probate. Third, and most importantly for asset protection, creditors of only one spouse generally cannot force a sale or attach the property because neither spouse owns an individual interest that can be seized.

The doctrine traces to English common law, where upon marriage, husband and wife became one legal person—the husband. Modern TBE has evolved to treat both spouses equally while preserving the concept of marital unity for property ownership purposes.

Ownership Type	Who Can Use	Creditor Protection	Survivorship	Unilateral Transfer
Tenancy by Entirety	Married couples only	Strong (individual creditors blocked)	Automatic	Neither spouse can act alone
Joint Tenancy (JTWROS)	Any co-owners	Weak (creditors can reach each interest)	Automatic	Either owner can sever
Tenants in Common	Any co-owners	None	No survivorship	Either owner can transfer share
Community Property	Married couples (9 states)	Weak	None unless CPWROS	Generally either spouse can act

All 25 states that recognize tenancy by the entirety

The following table identifies every jurisdiction recognizing tenancy by entirety as of 2026, including statute citations and whether each state extends protection to personal property beyond real estate.

Complete tenancy by entirety recognition by state

State	Statute Citation	Origin	Real Property	Personal Property
Alaska	Alaska Stat. § 34.15.140	Statutory	Yes	Limited
Arkansas	Ark. Code Ann. § 28-10-201	Common law	Yes	Yes
Delaware	Del. Code tit. 12 § 602, § 703	Common law + statutory	Yes	Yes
District of Columbia	D.C. Code § 42-516, § 46-601	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Florida	Fla. Stat. § 689.11, § 655.79	Common law + statutory	Yes	Yes
Hawaii	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 509-2	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Illinois	765 ILCS 1005/1c	Statutory	Homestead only	No
Indiana	Ind. Code § 32-17-3-1	Statutory	Yes	No
Kentucky	Ky. Rev. Stat. § 381.050	Common law	Yes	No
Maryland	Md. Real Prop. Code § 4-108	Common law + statutory	Yes	Yes
Massachusetts	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184 § 7	Common law + statutory	Yes	Limited
Michigan	Mich. Comp. Laws § 557.71	Statutory	Yes	No
Mississippi	Miss. Code Ann. § 89-1-7	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Missouri	Mo. Rev. Stat. § 442.450, § 362.470	Statutory	Yes	Yes
New Jersey	N.J. Stat. Ann. § 46:3-17.2	Statutory	Yes	Yes
New York	N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 6-2.2	Statutory	Yes	No
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-56 (2020)	Common law	Yes	No
Oklahoma	Okla. Stat. tit. 60 § 74	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Oregon	Or. Rev. Stat. § 91.020	Statutory	Yes	No
Pennsylvania	20 Pa.C.S.A. § 8503	Common law	Yes	Yes
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-11-3	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-109	Constitutional + Statutory	Yes	Yes
Vermont	Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 27 § 349	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Virginia	Va. Code Ann. § 55.1-136	Statutory	Yes	Yes
Wyoming	Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-140	Statutory	Yes	Yes

Important note on Ohio: Ohio enacted TBE in 1972 but abolished it on April 4, 1985. Only TBE estates created between February 1972 and April 1985 remain valid—no new TBE can be created in Ohio.

Which states extend tenancy by entirety to personal property and bank accounts

The asset protection power of tenancy by entirety extends far beyond real estate in approximately 16 states that recognize tenancy by entirety for personal property, including bank accounts, investment accounts, and vehicles. This distinction matters enormously because most families hold more wealth in financial accounts than in home equity.

States allowing tenancy by entirety for all property types

States that extend TBE protection to both real and personal property provide the most comprehensive marital asset protection. In these jurisdictions, married couples can title bank accounts, brokerage accounts, vehicles, and other assets as TBE with full creditor protection.

Florida offers the most expansive tenancy by entirety coverage in the nation. Under Fla. Stat. § 655.79, joint accounts held by married persons are presumed to be tenancy by entirety unless “otherwise specified in writing.” The landmark case Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), established that this presumption applies even without explicitly checking a “TBE” box on account applications.

Virginia explicitly authorizes tenancy by entirety for personal property under Va. Code § 55.1-136, which states that “spouses may own real or personal property as tenants by the entirety” and that “personal property may be owned as tenants by the entirety whether or not the personal property represents the proceeds of the sale of real property.”

Maryland recognizes TBE for personal property including bank accounts and LLC membership interests, as established in Diamond v. Diamond, 298 Md. 24 (1983).

Hawaii provides statutory authorization under HRS § 509-2(a) for “any other type of property or property rights or interests” to be held as TBE—covering virtually all asset categories.

Personal property tenancy by entirety availability by state

State	Bank Accounts	Investment Accounts	Vehicles	LLC Interests
Florida	Yes (presumed)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Virginia	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Maryland	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (Diamond case)
Hawaii	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Pennsylvania	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Delaware	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Missouri	Yes (§ 362.470)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Tennessee	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Wyoming	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Arkansas	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Jersey	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Vermont	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rhode Island	Yes	Yes	Limited	Limited
Oklahoma	Yes	Yes	Limited	Limited
Mississippi	Yes	Yes	Limited	Limited
D.C.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

States limiting tenancy by entirety to real property only

Nine states restrict tenancy by entirety to real estate, meaning bank accounts and investment portfolios cannot receive TBE protection regardless of how they are titled.

State	Real Property	Personal Property
New York	Yes	No (except co-op shares since 1996)
Illinois	Homestead only	No
Michigan	Yes	No
Indiana	Yes	No
Kentucky	Yes	No
North Carolina	Yes	No
Oregon	Yes	No
Massachusetts	Yes	No (creditor protection limited to principal residence)
Alaska	Yes	Limited

States with the strongest and weakest tenancy by entirety creditor protection

TBE protection strength varies dramatically by state. In “full bar” jurisdictions, creditors of one spouse cannot attach TBE property at all. In weaker states, creditors may be able to lien, attach, or even force sale of the debtor spouse’s contingent interest.

Strong protection states (“full bar” jurisdictions)

These states provide absolute protection from individual creditors:

Florida leads the nation in TBE protection strength. Property held as TBE cannot be attached, liened, or sold to satisfy debts of only one spouse. The property remains protected even if the debtor spouse declares bankruptcy individually. Florida’s constitutional homestead protection layers additional protection on top of TBE for residential property.

Hawaii’s landmark case Sawada v. Endo, 57 Haw. 608 (1977), established that “the interest of a husband or wife in an estate by the entirety is not subject to the claims of his or her individual creditors during the joint lives of the spouses.” This remains the leading authority cited across jurisdictions for full-bar TBE protection.

Maryland courts have consistently held that individual creditors have “no standing to complain” about transfers of TBE property because they never had an attachable interest. Watterson v. Edgerly, 388 A.2d 934 (Md. App. 1978).

Pennsylvania provides strong common-law protection confirmed by federal courts in Popky v. United States, 419 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2005), which addressed IRS lien attachment to TBE property.

Strong Protection States	Key Authority
Florida	Beal Bank v. Almand (2001)
Hawaii	Sawada v. Endo (1977)
Maryland	Watterson v. Edgerly (1978)
Delaware	Steigler v. Insurance Co. (1978)
Virginia	Oliver v. Givens (1963)
Missouri	Hanebrink v. Tower Grove Bank (1959)
Pennsylvania	C.I.T. Corp. v. Flint (1939)
North Carolina	L&M Gas Co. v. Leggett (1968)
D.C.	Full immunity by statute
Vermont	In re Pauquette (1984)

Moderate protection states

In these jurisdictions, creditor liens may attach but cannot be executed upon or are subject to significant limitations:

Massachusetts limits TBE creditor protection under M.G.L. c. 209 § 1 to situations where the property is “the principal residence of the non-debtor spouse.” Investment property receives no TBE protection from creditors.

New Jersey provides full-bar protection only for TBE interests created after April 1988. For earlier tenancies, creditors can acquire a survivorship interest under Newman v. Chase (1976).

Tennessee allows liens to attach to the survivorship interest only—the present possessory interest remains protected per In re Arango (1993).

Rhode Island permits liens to attach but prohibits forced sale under Cull v. Vadnais (1979).

Weak protection states

These states permit creditors to reach the debtor spouse’s tenancy by entirety interest:

Alaska explicitly allows creditors to “obtain levy and sale” of the debtor’s interest under Alaska Stat. § 09.38.100(a).

New York permits attachment and sale of the debtor’s interest, creating a hybrid tenancy where the creditor becomes co-owner with the non-debtor spouse. Hammond v. Econo-Car (1972).

Arkansas allows execution and partition, with creditors entitled to half of rents and profits subject to survivorship. Morris v. Solesbee (1995).

Oklahoma permits attachment and provides that a forced sale “shall constitute a severance” of the tenancy under Okla. Stat. tit. 60 § 74.

Weak Protection States	Creditor Rights
Alaska	Levy and sale permitted
New York	Attachment and sale permitted
Arkansas	Execution and partition allowed
Oklahoma	Attachment and severance permitted
Oregon	Attachment subject to survivorship

How federal tax liens affect tenancy by entirety property after United States v. Craft

The Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, fundamentally changed TBE’s effectiveness against IRS tax liens. Understanding this ruling is critical for any asset protection planning involving TBE.

The Craft decision explained

Don Craft owed over $482,000 in unpaid federal income taxes. He owned property in Michigan as TBE with his wife Sandra. After the IRS filed a tax lien, the Crafts quitclaimed Don’s interest to Sandra for one dollar, attempting to defeat the lien.

The Supreme Court held 6-3 that federal tax liens can attach to TBE property even in states where individual creditors cannot. The Court reasoned that while state law determines what rights a taxpayer has in property, federal law determines whether those rights constitute “property” for tax lien purposes under 26 U.S.C. § 6321.

Each TBE spouse possesses several property rights that constitute a sufficient “bundle of sticks” for federal attachment:

• Right to use the property
• Right to exclude third parties
• Right to share in income from the property
• Right of survivorship
• Right to half of sale proceeds (with spouse’s consent)

Post-Craft IRS treatment

IRS Notice 2003-60 implemented the Craft ruling. The IRS typically values the taxpayer’s interest in TBE property at 50% of the property’s value, though some courts have applied actuarial calculations based on each spouse’s life expectancy. The Third Circuit addressed this valuation issue in Popky v. United States, 419 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2005).

The IRS can force a sale of TBE property under 26 U.S.C. § 7403 following United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983), but must compensate the non-liable spouse for their interest.

What tenancy by entirety still protects against post-Craft

Despite Craft, tenancy by entirety remains highly effective against:

• Individual creditors of one spouse (in strong protection states)
• Business creditors and tort judgments against one spouse
• State tax authorities (most follow state TBE law rather than federal approach)
• Bankruptcy trustees (TBE property may be exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522)

Requirements for creating a valid tenancy by the entirety

Creating a valid TBE requires satisfying the traditional “five unities” at the time property is acquired. Failure to meet any unity can result in creation of joint tenancy or tenancy in common instead—losing TBE’s creditor protection benefits.

The five unities explained

Unity	Requirement
Time	Both spouses must acquire their interests simultaneously
Title	Both must receive title through the same deed or instrument
Interest	Both must have identical, equal ownership interests
Possession	Both must have equal rights to possess the entire property
Marriage	The owners must be legally married at acquisition

Note: Simply getting married does not convert existing property to tenancy by entirety. If one spouse owned property before marriage, adding the other spouse’s name afterward may not create tenancy by entirety because the unity of time is lacking. Michigan is the notable exception—joint tenancy held before marriage automatically converts to TBE upon marriage under Mich. Comp. Laws § 557.71.

States that presume tenancy by entirety versus states requiring explicit language

This distinction critically affects whether TBE is created by default or must be expressly declared:

State	Presumption	Explicit Language Required
Florida	Yes—joint property of married couples presumed TBE	No, but recommended
New York	Yes—deed to husband and wife creates TBE	No
Pennsylvania	Yes—”husband and wife” creates TBE presumption	No, but recommended
Maryland	Yes—property held by spouses presumed TBE	No, but recommended
Michigan	Yes—automatically converts joint tenancy upon marriage	No
Massachusetts	No—must explicitly state “tenants by the entirety”	Required
Illinois	No—must expressly declare	Required
Virginia	No for personal property—explicit designation needed	Yes for personal property

Massachusetts warning: Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184 § 7, a deed that says only “husband and wife” without the phrase “tenants by the entirety” creates a tenancy in common—not TBE. This statutory requirement causes many Massachusetts couples to inadvertently fail to create TBE protection.

Common mistakes that destroy tenancy by entirety status

Several errors frequently invalidate tenancy by entirety ownership:

Improper title language in states requiring explicit declaration (especially Massachusetts) results in creation of tenancy in common instead of TBE.

Adding spouse to pre-owned property without executing a completely new deed may fail to satisfy unity of time. Best practice is executing a deed conveying the entire property to both spouses as TBE.

Bank account errors occur when couples select “joint tenants with right of survivorship” instead of “tenants by the entirety” on account applications—forfeiting creditor protection entirely.

Bank agreement disclaimers can defeat TBE even when spouses intend to create it. In Storey Mountain, LLC v. George (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the court held that a bank’s customer agreement disclaiming TBE controlled over the spouses’ apparent intent.

Unequal ownership interests defeat the unity of interest. Conveying only a “half interest” to a spouse does not create TBE.

States that do not recognize tenancy by the entirety

Twenty-five states do not recognize TBE, falling into two categories: community property states that use a different ownership system, and non-community property states that simply never adopted or have abolished TBE.

Community property states

Nine states follow the community property system, which treats assets acquired during marriage as owned 50/50 by both spouses automatically:

State	Community Property	TBE Available	CPWROS Available
Arizona	Yes	No	Yes
California	Yes	No	Yes
Idaho	Yes	No	Yes
Louisiana	Yes	No	Limited
Nevada	Yes	No	Yes
New Mexico	Yes	No	Limited
Texas	Yes	No	Yes
Washington	Yes	No	Yes
Wisconsin	Yes	No	Yes

Community property states don’t need TBE because they have an entirely different ownership framework based on Spanish and French civil law rather than the English common law from which TBE derives. However, community property provides significantly weaker creditor protection than TBE—creditors of one spouse can typically reach community property to satisfy that spouse’s individual debts.

Alaska is a special case: it is not a community property state but allows couples to opt into community property treatment through agreements or trusts. Alaska also recognizes TBE, making it the only state offering both systems.

Non-community property states without tenancy by entirety

State	TBE Status
Alabama	Not recognized
Colorado	Not recognized
Connecticut	Not recognized
Georgia	Not recognized
Iowa	Not recognized
Kansas	Not recognized
Maine	Not recognized (since 1844)
Minnesota	Not recognized
Montana	Not recognized
Nebraska	Not recognized
New Hampshire	Not recognized
North Dakota	Not recognized
Ohio	Abolished April 4, 1985
South Carolina	Not recognized
South Dakota	Not recognized
Utah	Not recognized
West Virginia	Abolished

Recent changes to tenancy by entirety laws and special state variations

TBE law continues to evolve. Several significant developments have occurred in the past decade:

North Carolina (2020): SB 481 enacted a major recodification of TBE statutes, codifying creation requirements under new N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-56 and clarifying trust provisions under § 41-65.

Virginia (2019): The Commonwealth recodified its property laws, moving TBE provisions from Title 55 to Title 55.1. Va. Code § 55-20.2 became § 55.1-136, with strengthened trust immunity provisions.

Hawaii (2012): Extended TBE eligibility to reciprocal beneficiaries and allowed transfers to qualified trusts while maintaining TBE protection.

Qualified spousal trusts: Multiple states now allow married couples to transfer TBE property into specially designed trusts while retaining creditor protection. States with such provisions include Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming. This addresses the common concern that transferring TBE property to a revocable trust for probate avoidance could forfeit creditor protection.

State quirks to know

Michigan’s automatic conversion: Any joint tenancy held by two people who later marry automatically converts to TBE upon marriage—the only state with this rule.

Illinois homestead limitation: TBE in Illinois applies only to the principal residence under 765 ILCS 1005/1c—investment real estate cannot be held as TBE.

Massachusetts residence requirement: Creditor protection under M.G.L. c. 209 § 1 applies only when the property serves as the non-debtor spouse’s principal residence.

New York cooperative apartments: Since 1996, NY Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 6-2.2 extends TBE to cooperative apartment shares in addition to real property.

Conclusion

Tenancy by the entirety remains the most powerful form of marital property protection in the 16 strong-protection states where individual creditors cannot reach tenancy by entirety assets. Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania stand out for combining comprehensive property coverage (real and personal) with robust creditor protection.

Three critical limitations temper TBE’s effectiveness. First, the United States v. Craft decision means federal tax liens can pierce tenancy by entirety protection in all states. Second, joint creditors—those owed debts by both spouses—can reach TBE property in every jurisdiction; creditors routinely require both spousal signatures specifically to defeat TBE protection. Third, death of either spouse immediately terminates the protection, leaving the surviving spouse’s individual assets vulnerable.

For maximum asset protection, tenancy by entirety should be one component of a comprehensive strategy rather than a sole safeguard. Married couples in TBE states should title their primary residence, bank accounts, and investment accounts as TBE where permitted; ensure proper documentation and title language (especially in Massachusetts where explicit language is mandatory); avoid converting property to TBE after debts arise; and implement additional planning for the surviving spouse. In non-TBE states, alternatives including homestead exemptions, retirement account protections, and domestic asset protection trusts deserve careful consideration.