Beal Bank v. Almand: The Florida Supreme Court Case That Made TBE the Default

The Florida Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), created the presumption that bank accounts jointly held by married couples are owned as tenants by the entirety. That presumption made tenancy by the entireties the most accessible form of creditor protection in Florida.

Before Beal Bank, married couples who held joint bank accounts had to prove they intended to create an entireties estate. After Beal Bank, the burden shifted to creditors. A creditor seeking to garnish a joint spousal account must now prove that the account was not held as tenants by the entirety.

The Facts

Beal Bank obtained business-related judgments against a father, Amos Almand Jr., and his son, Amos Almand III. The bank then 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 at an evidentiary hearing that they intended to own the accounts jointly with their wives, with equal access and equal interest. Neither man had heard the term “tenancy by the entireties” when the accounts were opened. 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.

The Three Holdings

The Florida Supreme Court rephrased the Fifth District’s certified questions and answered each one.

First, the Court held that when a bank account is titled in both spouses’ names and the six unities of a tenancy by the entireties exist, a presumption arises that the account is held as tenants by the entirety. The presumption shifts the burden to 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. JTWROS language simply describes one of the six unities—survivorship—that is also present in a tenancy by the entirety. The SouthTrust account’s “JT TEN” designation did not defeat TBE status.

Third, the Court held that when a bank’s account agreement expressly disclaims entireties ownership, the debtor can still prove TBE intent through extrinsic evidence if the bank did not offer tenancy by the entireties as an option. A disclaimer in fine print is not the same as an informed choice. 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.

The Six Unities Framework

The Florida Supreme Court conditioned the Beal Bank presumption on the existence of six unities: possession, interest, title, time, survivorship, and marriage. All six had to be present for the presumption to arise. If any unity was missing, the couple could still prove entireties ownership, but without the benefit of the presumption.

The unity of possession requires that both spouses have 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 commenced simultaneously, meaning the account was opened by both spouses at the same time. Survivorship requires that the surviving spouse takes the entire account. Marriage requires that the couple was legally married when the account was created.

The Merrill Lynch account held by Almand III was the only account the Fifth District unanimously found subject to garnishment. The wife’s name was added to the account after it was originally opened by the husband alone, destroying the unities of time and title. The Supreme Court did not disturb that holding.

What the Presumption Changed

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. The practical effect was immediate. 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 held that a couple does not need to understand the legal terminology to benefit from the protection. Intent to own property jointly as a married unit is sufficient.

Subsequent Florida courts extended the Beal Bank framework beyond bank accounts. In Berlin v. Pecora, 968 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the court applied the same presumption to stock and limited partnership interests. Other courts extended it to tax refunds, household furnishings, and jewelry, confirming that the rationale applies to all personal property acquired in accordance with the unities.

Express Disclaimers and Signature Card Pitfalls

The Beal Bank framework creates two categories of express disclaimers. The first occurs when a bank offers TBE as one of several ownership options and the couple selects a different form. That selection is conclusive. The second occurs when a bank’s account agreement contains boilerplate language disclaiming TBE ownership without offering it as an option. In that situation, the couple can introduce extrinsic evidence of their intent.

The Barnett Bank welcome brochure contained exactly this kind of boilerplate. It stated that all joint accounts were held as joint tenants with right of survivorship, explicitly excluding TBE. The Court allowed the Almands to present extrinsic evidence to overcome this language because the bank never gave them an informed choice.

The distinction matters for asset protection planning. Married couples who open bank accounts should confirm that the signature card designates the account as tenants by the entirety. If the bank’s account agreement includes a TBE disclaimer or defaults to JTWROS, the couple’s protection depends on litigation rather than a clear document.

How Loumpos Expanded the Beal Bank Framework

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. An account opened by one spouse alone could not be converted to TBE by simply adding the other spouse’s name. The Merrill Lynch account in Beal Bank itself demonstrated this limitation.

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.

The Florida Supreme Court resolved the remaining uncertainty in Loumpos v. Dove Investment Corp., No. SC2024-1256 (Fla. 2025). The Court held that § 655.79(1) authorizes conversion of an individually held bank account into a TBE account when both spouses execute a new signature card designating entireties ownership. The unities of time and title are no longer required for bank accounts.

The Loumpos decision does not overrule Beal Bank. It builds on it. The Beal Bank presumption still applies to accounts that satisfied all six unities at creation. The statutory framework under § 655.79 now provides a separate path for accounts that do not meet the traditional unities, as long as both spouses affirmatively designate TBE ownership.

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.

Federal tax liens override TBE protection entirely. The U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002), that federal law independently defines property interests for tax collection purposes. The IRS can levy against a spouse’s interest in any TBE asset regardless of state-law protections.

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 Voidable Transactions Act if the transfer was made with the intent to hinder collection or if it rendered the debtor insolvent.

Divorce terminates entireties ownership automatically. Under Versace v. Uruven, LLC, 348 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), TBE property converts to tenancy in common the moment the dissolution is final. Each spouse’s half interest becomes individually reachable by that spouse’s creditors.

For assets beyond what TBE and Florida’s statutory exemptions can protect, the analysis moves to irrevocable trusts, LLCs, and offshore structures that are not subject to the same limitations.