Beal Bank v. Almand Case Analysis

In Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), the Florida Supreme Court held that joint spousal bank accounts are presumed to be held as tenants by the entirety. The creditor of one spouse must prove otherwise.

The presumption never arises at all if the signature card expressly disclaims entireties ownership. A card marked “joint tenants with right of survivorship” does not by itself disclaim entireties ownership. But when the bank offered tenancy by the entirety as an option and the couple chose a different form, that choice is an express disclaimer and no other evidence of their intent is allowed.

What Happened in Beal Bank v. Almand?

Beal Bank obtained business-related judgments against a father, Amos Almand Jr., and his son, Amos Almand III. The bank sought to garnish joint accounts the men held with their wives at three financial institutions: Compass Bank, SouthTrust Bank, and Barnett Bank. Neither wife was a party to the judgments or personally liable for the debts.

The signature cards at each bank described ownership differently. The Compass Bank cards listed both spouses’ names without specifying any form of joint ownership. The SouthTrust card designated the account as “JT TEN”—joint tenants with right of survivorship. The Barnett Bank welcome brochure expressly stated that joint accounts were not held as tenants by the entireties.

Both men testified that they intended to own the accounts jointly with their wives, with equal access and equal interest. The father had never heard of a tenancy by the entireties account when the accounts were opened. The son testified that he still did not clearly understand how the joint ownership forms differed. The trial court dissolved the writs of garnishment on all accounts. The Fifth District reversed as to some accounts and certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court.

What Did the Florida Supreme Court Hold?

The Florida Supreme Court rephrased the Fifth District’s certified questions and issued three holdings.

First, the Court held that a bank account titled in both spouses’ names is presumed to be held as tenants by the entirety. That presumption requires the six unities of a tenancy by the entireties and a signature card that does not expressly disclaim that form. The burden then falls on the creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a TBE estate was not created.

Second, the Court held that a signature card designating an account as “joint tenants with right of survivorship” does not, standing alone, constitute an express disclaimer of entireties ownership. A tenancy by the entireties is a joint tenancy modified by the common-law rule that husband and wife are one person, so the two forms share every characteristic. The SouthTrust account’s “JT TEN” designation did not defeat TBE status.

Third, the Court held that a couple whose signature card expressly disclaims entireties ownership may still prove they intended a tenancy by the entireties if the bank never offered that form or expressly ruled it out. No presumption arises in that situation, and the couple carries the burden of proof by a preponderance. But when a bank offers TBE as one of several ownership options and the couple selects something else, that selection is an express disclaimer and no extrinsic evidence is permitted.

What Are the Six Unities Required for TBE?

The Florida Supreme Court conditioned the Beal Bank presumption on six unities: possession, interest, title, time, survivorship, and marriage. All six had to be present for the presumption to arise. The Court said nothing about what happens when one is missing, and a footnote left open whether unity of time still belongs on the list.

The unity of possession requires joint ownership and control. The unity of interest requires identical interests in the account. The unity of title requires that both interests originated in the same instrument—for bank accounts, the signature card. The unity of time requires that both interests began at the same time, meaning the account was opened by both spouses together. Survivorship requires that the surviving spouse takes the entire account. Marriage requires that the couple was legally married when the account was created.

Almand III also held a Merrill Lynch account in his own name, later amended to add his wife as a co-owner, so the unities of time and title were absent. The Fifth District unanimously found that account subject to garnishment, and the Supreme Court expressly declined to address it. The 2008 amendment to § 655.79(1), construed in Loumpos, now governs that fact pattern.

How Did Beal Bank Change Florida Law?

Before Beal Bank, Florida courts applied inconsistent standards to personal property held by married couples. Real estate had long carried a presumption of entireties ownership when titled in both spouses’ names. Bank accounts, stock, and other personal property did not.

The decision extended the same protective presumption to bank accounts that real estate had always received. A creditor holding a judgment against one spouse could no longer garnish a joint bank account without first overcoming the presumption that the account was held as TBE.

The presumption also meant that married couples who lacked legal sophistication were no longer penalized for failing to specify “tenants by the entirety” on a signature card. The Almands testified that they did not know the legal meaning of a tenancy by the entireties. The Court adopted the presumption because the old rule set up “an obstacle course for litigation and a trap for the unwary.” The Almands’ testimony that each of them owned the whole account, rather than a share, was enough.

A later Florida decision read the Beal Bank rationale as reaching personal property beyond bank accounts. The Fourth District applied the presumption to a stock certificate titled in both spouses’ names in Cacciatore v. Fisherman’s Wharf Realty Ltd. Partnership, 821 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and reversed the order authorizing the levy. The presumption yields to a statute that prescribes the ownership form, so a vehicle titled with “or” is a joint tenancy rather than entireties personal property.

How Do Express Disclaimers and Signature Cards Affect TBE?

The Beal Bank decision recognizes two forms of express disclaimer. The first is a signed statement that the depositors did not intend a tenancy by the entireties, coupled with an express designation of another ownership form. The second is a signature card that offers entireties ownership among the choices, where the couple picks a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common instead.

Both forms have to appear on the signature card itself. The Barnett Bank welcome brochure said that all joint accounts were held as joint tenants with right of survivorship, explicitly excluding TBE, but it was a separate document that governed only the couple’s dealings with the bank. A presumption of entireties ownership therefore arose on the accounts at all three banks, and Beal Bank kept the burden of rebutting it.

The signature-card requirement is what § 655.79(1) later changed. In Storey Mountain, LLC v. George, 357 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the Fourth District held that the statutory disclaimer may appear in any writing, including a document the signature card incorporates by reference. The bank’s checking account agreement said that spousal accounts were not owned as tenants by the entireties unless expressly designated on the account records. The couple never designated TBE, so the court allowed the garnishment.

Married couples who open bank accounts should confirm that the signature card designates the account as tenants by the entirety. An account agreement that expressly disclaims entireties ownership defeats the presumption and leaves the account garnishable. Some banks do not offer TBE accounts at all, and couples banking at those institutions face additional risk.

An agreement that merely calls joint accounts a joint tenancy with right of survivorship does not defeat the presumption. The Eleventh Circuit drew that line in Storey Mountain v. Del Amo, 158 F.4th 1335 (11th Cir. 2025), holding that the 2008 amendment left Beal Bank‘s express-disclaimer requirement in force. As that court put it, “It is not enough to say the account is something else.”

Does § 655.79 Protect an Account One Spouse Opened Alone?

Yes. In Loumpos v. Bank One, 423 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2025), the Florida Supreme Court unanimously held that section 655.79 authorizes a joint spousal bank account to be held as a tenancy by the entireties even if the account was originally established by one spouse. For a spousal deposit account, the statutory presumption is not defeated by the absence of the unities of time and title.

The Beal Bank presumption required all six unities to be present. The most restrictive were the unities of time and title, which required both spouses to open the account together in the same instrument. On that reading an account opened by one spouse alone could not become entireties property when the other spouse’s name was added later. Beal Bank itself declined to address the Merrill Lynch account in the case, which had exactly those facts, so the Court left the fact pattern open.

The Florida Legislature partially addressed this problem in 2008 by amending Florida Statutes § 655.79(1). The amended statute provides that any deposit or account in the name of two persons who are husband and wife is considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.

In Loumpos, the Court also approved, to the extent consistent with its opinion, the Fourth District’s decision in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, 348 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), which reached the same result for a converted spousal account. The Loumpos decision does not overrule Beal Bank. The Beal Bank presumption still applies to accounts that satisfied all six unities at creation. Section 655.79(1) now supplies a separate path: an account in the names of two spouses is considered a tenancy by the entirety unless a writing specifies otherwise.

What Are the Limits of the Beal Bank Presumption?

The Beal Bank presumption protects against creditors of one spouse only. When both spouses are liable on the same debt—a jointly signed mortgage, a business guarantee both spouses executed, or a joint tax obligation—tenancy by the entirety provides no protection.

A federal tax lien reaches entireties property. The U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002), that the lien attaches to a married taxpayer’s interest even where state law keeps the property away from the creditors of either spouse alone. State exemptions do not bind the federal collector. The Eleventh Circuit has refused to read Craft beyond the IRS’s own collection powers, so a private creditor of one spouse gains nothing from it.

A spouse who converts individually owned assets into entireties property after a creditor claim exists faces fraudulent transfer exposure. The Beal Bank presumption does not immunize the transfer itself. A creditor can challenge the conversion under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act if the transfer was made with the intent to hinder collection, or if the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent at the time.

Divorce terminates entireties ownership automatically. Entireties property becomes a tenancy in common under Fla. Stat. § 689.15 the moment the dissolution is final. Each former spouse’s half interest is then reachable by that spouse’s creditors. The Florida Supreme Court applied that rule in Davis v. Dieujuste, 496 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1986). The limit is Sharp v. Hamilton, 520 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1988): when the dissolution judgment awards the property to one spouse, no lien of the other spouse’s creditor attaches to it.

The Florida asset protection decisions since Beal Bank have marked where the presumption stops, refusing it for a vehicle whose title uses “or” to join the spouses’ names. For assets beyond what TBE and Florida’s statutory exemptions can protect, the analysis moves to irrevocable trusts, LLCs, and offshore structures.