Tenancy by the Entireties Case Law in Florida

Florida courts have spent two decades refining the rules for tenancy by the entireties, moving from a rigid common-law framework to a statutory presumption that favors married couples. The cases below trace that evolution and define where TBE protection applies, where it does not, and what married couples must do to ensure their assets actually qualify.

The practical stakes are high. A bank account that qualifies as tenants by the entirety is fully immune from a creditor holding a judgment against only one spouse. An account that fails to qualify is fully exposed. The difference often comes down to how the account was opened and what the signature card says.

Beal Bank v. Almand (Fla. 2001)

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), is the foundational case for tenancy by the entireties law in Florida. The case involved several bank accounts held jointly by married couples, where a creditor of one spouse sought to garnish the accounts. None of the signature cards specified tenancy by the entireties as the form of ownership.

The Court established a presumption: if a bank account is titled in the names of both spouses and the signature card does not expressly disclaim entireties ownership, the account is presumed to be held as tenants by the entirety. The presumption shifts the burden to the creditor, who must prove by a preponderance that the couple did not intend to create an entireties estate.

The Court conditioned the presumption on the existence of the six traditional 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 debtor could still prove entireties ownership, but without the benefit of the presumption.

The Court also addressed express disclaimers. If the signature card offers TBE as an option alongside other ownership forms and the couple selects something other than TBE, the couple has disclaimed entireties ownership. If the bank does not offer TBE at all, the couple can introduce extrinsic evidence to prove they intended entireties ownership despite the bank’s failure to provide the option.

Before Beal Bank, Florida courts applied inconsistent standards to personal property. Real estate held by married couples had long been presumed to be entireties property, but bank accounts and other personal property lacked a clear framework. The decision extended the same protective presumption to bank accounts that real estate had always received, creating the foundation for modern TBE asset protection planning.

Loumpos v. Dove Investment Corp. (Fla. 2025)

The Florida Supreme Court’s December 2025 decision in Loumpos v. Dove Investment Corp., No. SC2024-1256, resolved a conflict between the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal and expanded TBE protection for bank accounts beyond what Beal Bank had established.

The facts involved a wife who had a default judgment entered against her individually. After her marriage, her husband opened a bank account in his own name. Months later, both spouses executed new signature cards designating the account as tenancy by the entireties. Only the husband’s wages funded the account. When the creditor sought to garnish the account, the wife claimed entireties protection.

The trial court rejected the claim because the account was originally opened by one spouse, so the unities of time and title were absent. The Second District affirmed. The Fourth District, in a separate case called Versace v. Uruven, LLC, had reached the opposite conclusion, finding that an express TBE designation on the signature card was sufficient regardless of timing.

The Supreme Court held that Florida Statutes § 655.79(1), as amended in 2008, controls over the common-law unities for bank accounts. The 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 Court found that this language authorizes conversion of an individually held account into a TBE account when both spouses later sign documents designating entireties ownership.

The Court clarified that Beal Bank did not address this situation. The Beal Bank presumption applied only where the unities already existed. The 2008 statutory amendment eliminated the unities of time and title as requirements for bank accounts, replacing them with a statutory presumption triggered by joint spousal titling.

The decision does not create automatic protection for every joint account. The statutory presumption can be rebutted by proof of fraud, undue influence, or clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent. Creditors can still challenge entireties status through fraudulent transfer claims if the account conversion was designed to hinder an existing creditor. The decision also does not address whether the same reasoning extends to brokerage accounts, investment accounts, or other financial assets not governed by § 655.79.

United States v. Craft (U.S. 2002)

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002), created the most significant limitation on TBE protection in Florida and every other state that recognizes the doctrine. The Court held that a federal tax lien can attach to a taxpayer’s interest in TBE property, even though state law treats that property as immune from individual creditors’ claims.

The case involved a Michigan couple who owned real property as tenants by the entirety. The IRS filed a federal tax lien against the husband for unpaid income taxes. The Sixth Circuit held that no lien attached because the husband had no separate interest under Michigan law. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Court reasoned that federal law, not state law, determines what constitutes “property” or “rights to property” under 26 U.S.C. § 6321. Each spouse in a tenancy by the entirety holds individual rights, including the right to use the property, exclude others, receive income, and block unilateral alienation. These rights are sufficient to constitute “property” to which a federal lien attaches.

For Florida residents, Craft means TBE protection does not work against the IRS. A married couple’s jointly held bank account, real estate, or investment portfolio may be fully protected from state-court judgment creditors but fully exposed to a federal tax lien. Planning that relies solely on TBE titling leaves a hole against federal claims. Layering TBE with irrevocable trusts for non-exempt assets and offshore trusts when federal exposure is present addresses the vulnerability that Craft creates.

Storey Mountain v. George (Fla. 2023)

In Storey Mountain, LLC v. George, 357 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 2023), the court held that property held as tenants by the entirety is not subject to partition. The creditor sought partition as an alternative method of reaching the property when the judgment was against only one spouse.

The court rejected the attempt, holding that TBE property is vested in the marital unit as a single legal entity. Neither spouse holds a separate, divisible interest that can be partitioned. Partition becomes available only when divorce severs the unity of marriage. At that point, the TBE automatically converts to a tenancy in common under Versace v. Uruven, LLC, 348 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 2022).

The decision reinforces the principle that TBE property truly belongs to the marriage, not to either individual spouse. A creditor cannot circumvent TBE protection by recharacterizing a collection effort as a partition action.

Versace v. Uruven, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)

The Fourth District’s decision in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, 348 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), addressed both the creation and destruction of TBE status. On creation, the court held that an express TBE designation on a bank signature card is sufficient to establish entireties ownership, even without satisfying all common-law unities. The Florida Supreme Court later approved this reasoning in Loumpos.

On destruction, the court confirmed a rule practitioners treat as settled but that had not been expressly stated: TBE property automatically converts to tenancy in common when a marriage dissolves. The conversion happens by operation of law when the divorce is final. The former spouses each hold an undivided half interest as tenants in common, and each spouse’s interest is individually reachable by that spouse’s creditors.

The practical implication is significant for divorce asset protection. A person who relies on TBE to protect a bank account, brokerage portfolio, or real estate loses that protection the moment the divorce becomes final, without any affirmative act by either spouse or any creditor.

The IRS Exception and Bankruptcy Complications

The Craft decision is the most important limitation on TBE planning, but it is not the only federal complication. In bankruptcy, TBE property receives protection under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B), but only against claims of individual creditors. A bankruptcy trustee representing joint creditors of both spouses can reach TBE assets.

The bankruptcy cases also reveal a timing distinction that matters for planning. The fraudulent transfer lookback for TBE property in bankruptcy is four years under state law plus one year under the Bankruptcy Code. For homestead property, the lookback extends to ten years. TBE has no white-collar crime exception, while homestead does. These differences mean TBE property can be more secure than homestead in certain bankruptcy scenarios.

Federal courts in Florida have also reached conflicting conclusions about whether assets held in a joint revocable trust retain their TBE protection. Married couples who want both probate avoidance and entireties protection face an unresolved question. The safest approach is to hold TBE assets directly during both spouses’ lifetimes and use transfer-on-death provisions or trust structures that take effect only after the surviving spouse’s death.

Practical Framework from the Case Law

The cases above establish a clear framework for TBE planning in Florida. First, title assets in both spouses’ names with an express TBE designation. After Loumpos, an individually held bank account can be converted to TBE by executing a new signature card, but the designation must be explicit.

Second, verify that the financial institution’s account agreement does not disclaim entireties ownership. After Beal Bank, an express disclaimer on the signature card or in the account agreement defeats the presumption. Some banks have customer agreements that disclaim TBE or default to joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

Third, recognize the limits. TBE does not protect against joint debts, federal tax liens after Craft, or claims that survive divorce after Versace. TBE is the cheapest and simplest creditor protection available to married couples, but it has boundaries that other structures fill. For assets beyond what TBE and Florida’s statutory exemptions can protect, the analysis moves to irrevocable trusts, LLCs, and offshore structures.