Tenancy by the Entireties Case Law in Florida

Florida courts have spent two decades refining the rules for tenancy by the entireties, moving from rigid common-law requirements to a statutory presumption that favors married couples. The cases below trace that evolution and define where TBE protection applies, where it breaks down, and what married couples must do to ensure their assets actually qualify.

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 bank’s documents say.

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 carried a presumption of entireties ownership, but bank accounts and other personal property lacked clear rules. The decision extended the same protective presumption to bank accounts, creating the foundation for modern TBE asset protection planning.

Loumpos v. Bank One (Fla. 2025)

The Florida Supreme Court’s December 2025 decision in Loumpos v. Bank One, 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.

A wife 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 Versace v. Uruven, LLC, had reached the opposite conclusion in a separate case, 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 Court also did not address whether the same reasoning extends to brokerage accounts, investment accounts, or other financial assets not governed by § 655.79.

Storey Mountain v. George (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Storey Mountain, LLC v. George, 357 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), addressed whether a bank’s own customer agreement can override the statutory TBE presumption—and held that it can.

A creditor sought to garnish a joint spousal bank account to satisfy a judgment against only the husband. The couple’s signature card did not expressly disclaim TBE ownership. But the bank’s standard checking account agreement contained a clause about spousal accounts. It stated that such accounts are “NOT owned as tenants by the entireties unless otherwise expressly designated on the Account records.” The agreement also stated that all joint accounts are held as joint tenants with right of survivorship.

The court held that this language in the bank’s customer agreement qualified as a “writing” under § 655.79(1) sufficient to negate the TBE presumption. The Legislature’s use of “writing”—a broader term than “signature card”—means the disclaimer does not have to appear on the signature card itself. Any written document incorporated by reference into the account relationship can disclaim TBE ownership, including the fine print of a standard customer agreement that most depositors never read.

A married couple can open a joint account at a bank that buries a TBE disclaimer deep in its customer agreement and believe their funds are protected. They may discover during a garnishment proceeding that the account was never held as tenants by the entirety.

Couples who want TBE protection must read their bank’s deposit agreement before opening an account and confirm that nothing in the documents disclaims entireties ownership. Banks that affirmatively designate all joint accounts as JTWROS in their written agreements may defeat TBE protection even when the signature card says nothing about ownership form.

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.

TBE protection disappears the moment a divorce becomes final. A person who relies on TBE to protect a bank account, brokerage portfolio, or real estate loses that protection when the marriage dissolves, without any affirmative act by either spouse or any creditor.

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 single largest limitation on TBE protection in Florida and every other state that recognizes the doctrine. Federal tax liens 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 federal claims unaddressed. Layering TBE with irrevocable trusts for non-exempt assets and offshore trusts when federal exposure is present addresses the vulnerability that Craft creates.

Federal Complications in Bankruptcy

TBE property receives protection in bankruptcy 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, which means the individual-versus-joint distinction applies in bankruptcy the same way it applies in state court.

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.

Grossfeld v. Wells Fargo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)

The Third District Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision in Grossfeld, 389 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), addressed what happens to TBE protection when entireties real property is sold through foreclosure. The court held that surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale of TBE property lose their entireties status once the property is sold, making 50% of the proceeds available to the husband’s individual creditor.

The court reasoned that the foreclosure sale severed the unities required for TBE ownership. Once the property was sold, the proceeds were no longer held in the form of a tenancy by the entirety. The decision did not address whether voluntary sale proceeds suffer the same fate, but it underscores a risk that TBE property owners may not anticipate: forced liquidation can strip entireties protection even when the underlying property was fully protected.

The Grossfeld holding creates a planning consideration for couples with non-homestead real estate held as TBE. If a mortgage default triggers foreclosure, any surplus after the lender is paid may be split and partially exposed to individual creditors.

What the Cases Require for TBE Protection

The cases above establish clear rules 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 Storey Mountain, an express disclaimer in the bank’s customer agreement defeats the presumption even if the signature card says nothing about ownership form. 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.