Can a Joint Bank Account Be Garnished in Florida?

A joint bank account can be garnished in Florida even when the judgment is against only one of the account holders. When a creditor serves a writ of garnishment on a bank, the bank freezes every account where the debtor’s name appears, including joint accounts. Whether the creditor can ultimately collect from the frozen funds depends on the type of joint ownership, who contributed the money, and whether the non-debtor co-owner takes prompt action to assert their rights.

The critical distinction is between accounts held as tenants by the entireties and accounts held in any other form of joint ownership. Married couples in Florida benefit from a statutory presumption that their joint accounts are entireties property, which provides strong protection. Joint accounts between unmarried co-owners receive no comparable protection and are exposed to garnishment for either owner’s debts.

Tenants by Entireties: Protected from Individual Creditors

A bank account owned by a married couple as tenants by the entireties cannot be garnished to satisfy a judgment against only one spouse. This protection exists because entireties ownership treats the married couple as a single legal unit. Neither spouse individually owns a divisible interest in the account, so a creditor of one spouse has nothing to seize.

Florida Statute § 655.79 provides that any deposit or account in the name of two persons who are husband and wife is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing. This 2008 statutory amendment significantly strengthened the protection by eliminating much of the earlier litigation over whether a particular account met all six traditional unities required for entireties ownership. Under the current statute, if a married couple opens a joint bank account and the signature card does not expressly disclaim entireties ownership, the account is presumed to be entireties property.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reinforced this principle in Versace v. Urvan, LLC. In that case, a judgment creditor argued that a joint bank account lacked the unity of time because the debtor’s wife had originally opened the account alone. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order allowing garnishment, holding that § 655.79 created a presumption of entireties ownership that the creditor had not overcome.

Despite the presumption, the bank will still freeze the account when it receives a writ of garnishment. The bank does not evaluate exemptions at the freezing stage. The debtor or the non-debtor spouse must file a Claim of Exemption asserting that the account is entireties property. If the creditor does not contest the exemption within the statutory deadline, the garnishment is dissolved and the funds are released.

When Entireties Protection Fails

The entireties presumption has several important exceptions. If both spouses are jointly liable on the underlying debt, the creditor holds a joint judgment and can garnish the entireties account. Separate judgments against each spouse on different debts do not create a joint judgment for this purpose.

Federal “super creditors” can also reach entireties property. The IRS can levy up to half of an entireties account to satisfy a tax debt owed by one spouse. The SEC, Department of Justice, FTC, and FDIC have similar powers under federal collection statutes that preempt state exemptions.

The protection also vanishes upon divorce or the death of one spouse. Divorce immediately converts entireties property to a tenancy in common, and the debtor spouse’s share becomes exposed to creditors. If the non-debtor spouse dies first, the surviving debtor spouse inherits the entire account outright, and it becomes fully subject to garnishment. These risks make entireties ownership a valuable but impermanent layer of protection.

The most common practical failure occurs when a married couple inadvertently disclaims entireties ownership. If the signature card offers a choice between “Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship” and “Tenants by the Entireties,” and the couple selects the wrong option, the account is not entireties property regardless of their intent. Some banks do not offer entireties as a titling option at all. Couples should review their signature cards and confirm that the account documentation reflects entireties ownership.

Joint Accounts Between Unmarried Co-Owners

Joint accounts between unmarried individuals receive no entireties protection. A parent and adult child, siblings, or business partners who share a bank account face a different legal analysis when a creditor garnishes the account for one owner’s debt.

The default rule is that a creditor can garnish the debtor’s proportional share of a jointly owned account. If two people hold an account as joint tenants with right of survivorship, each is presumed to own 50% of the funds, and the creditor can reach the debtor’s half. If the account is held as tenants in common with unequal shares, the creditor can garnish the debtor’s specified share.

In practice, the bank freezes the entire account upon receiving the writ, not just the debtor’s share. The non-debtor co-owner must affirmatively intervene to protect their portion of the funds. This typically requires filing a claim with the court demonstrating that specific funds in the account belong to the non-debtor and were never the debtor’s property.

Florida courts have applied a “good conscience” test in evaluating whether garnished funds in a joint account truly belong to the non-debtor co-owner. In Antuna v. Dawson, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that property not actually owned in good conscience by the debtor cannot be seized by the judgment creditor. If a judgment debtor shares an account with an elderly parent, and all deposits originated from the parent’s Social Security and pension income, the funds should not be garnished to satisfy the debtor’s judgment. The debtor in that scenario is merely managing the parent’s money.

The analysis changes if the debtor actually used the joint account funds for their own benefit. A debtor who deposits their own income into a joint account alongside a co-owner’s funds cannot claim the entire balance belongs to the co-owner. The court will examine the source of each deposit to determine what portion belongs to the debtor and is therefore subject to garnishment.

The Tracing Problem in Commingled Accounts

Joint accounts frequently contain commingled funds from multiple sources, which creates a tracing burden when a garnishment occurs. The non-debtor co-owner must demonstrate which deposits belong to them and which belong to the debtor. Without clear records, the court may treat the entire balance as subject to garnishment on the theory that the debtor’s funds cannot be separated from the co-owner’s.

Maintaining separate deposit records is the most effective way to protect a non-debtor co-owner’s interest in a joint account. Bank statements showing that the non-debtor’s paycheck, Social Security benefits, or other identifiable income was the sole source of deposits provide the documentary evidence needed to establish ownership. When deposits from both owners are intermingled over months or years with no clear records, the non-debtor will have difficulty proving their share.

The tracing problem is especially acute when the debtor deposited head of household wages into a joint account alongside the co-owner’s non-exempt income. The debtor’s wages may be exempt from garnishment under § 222.11, but the exemption only applies if the debtor can trace the funds to the exempt source. If exempt wages are commingled with non-exempt deposits, the debtor bears the burden of proving which portion of the account balance originated from wages.

What the Non-Debtor Co-Owner Should Do

When a joint account is frozen by a writ of garnishment and the judgment is against only one account holder, the non-debtor co-owner has procedural rights under Florida’s garnishment statute. Section 77.055 requires the creditor to serve notice on any person disclosed in the garnishee’s answer as having an ownership interest in the account. The bank’s answer to the writ will typically identify all account holders, which triggers the creditor’s obligation to notify each co-owner.

The non-debtor co-owner should gather documentation showing the source of all deposits in the account. This includes pay stubs, benefit award letters, bank statements from the period before the garnishment, and any other records that establish which funds belong to the non-debtor. The co-owner should then file a claim with the court asserting ownership of their portion of the frozen funds and requesting that those funds be released from the garnishment.

Time is critical. The garnishment statute imposes strict deadlines for claiming exemptions and challenging the writ. A non-debtor co-owner who does not act promptly risks losing funds that legitimately belong to them. The creditor can obtain a Final Judgment of Garnishment against the entire frozen balance if no exemption or ownership claim is filed within the statutory period.

Joint Accounts and Fraudulent Transfer Exposure

A debtor who transfers funds into a joint account after a judgment is entered creates potential fraudulent transfer exposure. If the debtor moves money from an individual account into a joint account with a spouse or family member in an attempt to shield it from collection, the creditor can challenge the transfer as fraudulent regardless of how the joint account is titled.

Even transfers into a legitimate entireties account can be scrutinized. Florida courts have held that while an entireties account is protected from individual creditors, transfers made into that account after the facts giving rise to the debt occurred may be subject to fraudulent conveyance analysis. The account itself is protected, but the specific transfer may be reversed if the creditor can show it was made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

The safest approach is to establish joint accounts and fund them as part of routine financial management well before any garnishment risk materializes. Accounts opened and funded during the normal course of a marriage, with both spouses’ regular income, are far less vulnerable to fraudulent transfer challenges than accounts hastily established after a lawsuit is filed.