Joint Bank Accounts and Creditor Protection in Florida

Florida law treats joint bank accounts differently depending on who owns the account and how the account is titled. A married couple’s joint account can carry significant creditor protection if it qualifies as tenancy by the entirety. A joint account between unmarried individuals—parent and child, business partners, or an unmarried couple—receives no comparable protection and may expose the non-debtor co-owner’s funds to garnishment.

The distinction between these two categories drives most of the asset protection analysis for Florida bank accounts.

Types of Joint Bank Account Ownership

Florida recognizes several forms of joint ownership for bank accounts, and each one carries different consequences when a creditor obtains a judgment against one of the owners. The form of ownership controls whether the account can be garnished, how much of the account balance is vulnerable, and what the non-debtor co-owner must prove to recover frozen funds.

Joint tenants with right of survivorship is the default form of joint ownership for non-married co-owners and for married couples who affirmatively select it on their signature card. Either owner can withdraw the full balance at any time. When one owner dies, the surviving owner takes full ownership without probate. A creditor of one owner can garnish the account to the extent of the debtor’s interest, and Florida courts generally presume each owner has an equal right to the entire balance.

Tenancy by the entirety is available only to married couples. Both spouses own the account as a single legal unit, and neither spouse can sever the ownership without the other’s consent. A creditor holding a judgment against only one spouse cannot garnish a tenancy by the entirety account. This protection fails when the creditor holds a judgment against both spouses jointly.

Tenancy in common divides ownership into separate fractional interests. Each co-owner’s share is independently subject to creditor claims. This form of ownership is uncommon for bank accounts in Florida but can arise when the account agreement specifies it or when a court determines that the parties’ conduct reflected separate ownership interests.

Ownership Form	Available To	Creditor of One Owner Can Garnish?	Right of Survivorship
Tenancy by the entirety	Married couples only	No (if judgment is against one spouse only)	Yes
Joint tenants with right of survivorship	Any co-owners	Yes, to the extent of debtor’s interest	Yes
Tenancy in common	Any co-owners	Yes, to the extent of debtor’s share	No

Tenancy by the Entirety for Married Couples

Florida provides strong statutory and common law protection for bank accounts held by married couples as tenancy by the entirety. The protection stems from the legal fiction that the married couple owns the account as a single, indivisible unit rather than as two individuals holding separate interests.

The Statutory Presumption Under Section 655.79

Florida Statute 655.79(1) establishes that any bank account held in the names of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing. The presumption can be overcome only by proof of fraud or undue influence, or by clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent.

The statute codified principles the Florida Supreme Court established in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001). In Beal Bank, the Court held that when a signature card does not expressly disclaim tenancy by the entirety, a presumption arises that a married couple’s joint bank account is held as tenancy by the entirety—provided the account was established in accordance with the common law unities of possession, interest, title, time, survivorship, and marriage.

The practical effect of the statute and Beal Bank together is that most joint bank accounts opened by married couples in Florida qualify as tenancy by the entirety by default. Married couples do not need to request a special account type or use specific language on the signature card, as long as the bank’s documents do not disclaim entirety ownership.

When the Presumption Fails

The presumption of tenancy by the entirety can be defeated in several ways that married account holders should understand.

A bank’s customer agreement can disclaim entirety ownership even when the signature card is silent. In Storey Mountain, LLC v. George, 357 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a bank’s standard checking account agreement—which stated that spousal accounts are “NOT owned as tenants by the entireties” unless expressly designated—constituted a sufficient “writing” under Section 655.79(1) to negate the statutory presumption. The married couple’s account was therefore subject to garnishment by a creditor of one spouse.

A bank’s account opening form can also defeat entirety ownership if it offers tenancy by the entirety as an option and the couple selects a different form of ownership. Under the Beal Bank framework, when a financial institution affirmatively provides depositors with the option to select tenancy by the entirety and the depositors instead select joint tenancy with right of survivorship, that selection constitutes an express disclaimer.

However, the Eleventh Circuit’s November 2025 decision in Storey Mountain v. Del Amo, No. 24-13216 (11th Cir. 2025), limited the reach of the 4th DCA’s earlier Storey Mountain v. George holding. The Eleventh Circuit held that a signature card’s fine-print statement—”joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship”—without an explicit reference to tenancy by the entirety was insufficient to disclaim entirety ownership. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the couple’s TD Bank account qualified as tenancy by the entirety and was therefore exempt property.

The Del Amo and George decisions create an important practical distinction. A generic statement that joint accounts are held as joint tenants with right of survivorship does not, by itself, overcome the statutory presumption. A specific statement disclaiming tenancy by the entirety—particularly one that requires couples to affirmatively request entirety ownership—may overcome the presumption, depending on the clarity and specificity of the language.

Practical Steps for Married Couples

Married couples who want to ensure their joint bank accounts qualify as tenancy by the entirety should review their bank’s signature card and customer agreement before assuming the statutory presumption protects them.

The signature card should expressly designate the account as tenancy by the entirety if that option is available. If the bank does not offer that designation, the couple should confirm that neither the signature card nor the customer agreement contains language disclaiming entirety ownership. Both spouses must be named on the account, and both should be present when the account is opened so that the unities of time and title are satisfied.

Couples who discover that their bank’s agreement disclaims entirety ownership should request that the bank amend the agreement or should move the account to a financial institution that recognizes tenancy by the entirety for bank accounts.

Joint Accounts Between Unmarried Individuals

Joint bank accounts held by unmarried co-owners—a parent and adult child, siblings, business partners, or domestic partners—receive no tenancy by the entirety protection. These accounts are typically classified as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and a creditor of any one owner can seek to garnish the account.

Exposure of the Non-Debtor’s Funds

When a creditor serves a writ of garnishment on a bank, the bank freezes the entire joint account regardless of which owner is the debtor. The freeze is not limited to the debtor’s proportional share. The non-debtor co-owner must then affirmatively prove that some or all of the funds belong to the non-debtor in order to release the freeze.

Florida courts generally presume that each joint account owner has the right to withdraw the entire account balance. This presumption means a creditor is not automatically limited to garnishing half of the funds. The non-debtor’s recourse is to file a claim of exemption or a motion to dissolve the garnishment and present evidence that specific funds are traceable to the non-debtor’s own deposits.

Proving traceable contributions requires documentation—bank statements, pay stubs, deposit records, and transfer histories—showing which deposits originated from the non-debtor. Commingled funds make tracing difficult. When both the debtor and non-debtor regularly deposit money into the same account, courts may be unable to determine which funds belong to which owner, and the creditor may reach the full balance.

Convenience Accounts

A common situation involves an adult child who is added to an elderly parent’s bank account for the purpose of paying bills and managing finances. The account is functionally a convenience arrangement, but it may be titled as a standard joint account with right of survivorship.

If the adult child faces a judgment, the parent’s funds in the account are exposed to garnishment. The parent must then demonstrate that the account was a convenience arrangement rather than a true joint ownership—that the child had access solely for the parent’s benefit and did not treat the funds as the child’s own. Relevant evidence includes whether the child made personal withdrawals, whether the parent was the sole source of deposits, and whether the account was used exclusively for the parent’s expenses.

Florida Statute 655.80 addresses convenience accounts, but many banks do not offer a formal convenience account designation. Parents who need a child’s assistance managing finances may be better served by a durable power of attorney or by designating the child as an authorized signer rather than a co-owner.

Why Adding a Non-Spouse Rarely Helps

Some individuals add a family member to a bank account in the belief that shared ownership will shield the funds from the original owner’s creditors. This strategy is ineffective for two reasons.

First, adding a co-owner does not change the debtor’s right to the funds. Florida courts can still treat the debtor as having access to the full account balance. The garnishment writ applies to all accounts in which the debtor has an interest, regardless of whether a co-owner is also named.

Second, adding a co-owner after a claim arises or after a judgment is entered may constitute a fraudulent transfer under Florida’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. A creditor can seek to undo the transfer and may obtain additional sanctions.

Joint Creditors and Both-Spouse Judgments

Tenancy by the entirety protects a married couple’s joint bank account only when the judgment runs against one spouse alone. When both spouses are jointly liable on the same debt, the creditor holds a joint judgment, and the entirety protection does not apply.

Joint liability can arise in several ways. Both spouses may have co-signed a loan or a lease. Both may have been named as defendants in a lawsuit. Both may have guaranteed a business obligation. In each case, the resulting judgment is against both spouses, and the creditor can garnish any account the couple holds—including accounts titled as tenancy by the entirety.

Married couples should evaluate their joint liabilities carefully. If both spouses are jointly liable on certain debts, the protection of entirety ownership for bank accounts is effectively nullified as to those creditors.

Federal Claims and IRS Liens

Federal tax liens can reach tenancy by the entirety property under certain circumstances, even when only one spouse owes the tax debt. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002), holding that federal tax liens may attach to a taxpayer’s interest in entirety property. The IRS can enforce a lien against the debtor spouse’s interest in the account, although the scope of that enforcement depends on the specific facts.

Other federal creditors—including agencies enforcing federal civil judgments—may also bypass state-law entirety protections depending on the nature of the claim. The interplay between federal and state law makes entirety ownership less reliable as a defense against federal creditors than against private judgment creditors.

Fraudulent Conversion Risk

Moving funds from an individual account to a joint tenancy by the entirety account after a claim arises can be challenged as a fraudulent conversion. The creditor does not need to prove that the debtor intended to defraud; under Florida’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, a transfer made for less than reasonably equivalent value while the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result is voidable.

The timing of the conversion is critical. A debtor who moves individual funds to an entirety account before any creditor claim exists faces far less risk than a debtor who does so after a lawsuit is filed or a judgment is entered. Courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial condition at the time of the transfer, the proximity of the transfer to the creditor’s claim, and whether the debtor retained sufficient non-exempt assets to pay existing debts.

Divorce and the Loss of Entirety Protection

Tenancy by the entirety terminates when the marriage ends. Upon divorce, property that was held as tenancy by the entirety typically converts to tenancy in common, and each former spouse’s share becomes independently subject to that spouse’s creditors.

A debtor who relied on entirety ownership to protect bank accounts during the marriage may find those accounts fully exposed after a divorce decree is entered. Planning for this transition is particularly important when one spouse has significant creditor exposure.