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 account holder. 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 collect depends on the type of joint ownership, who contributed the money, and whether the non-debtor co-owner acts quickly.

The outcome turns on one distinction: accounts held as tenants by the entireties versus every 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 against individual creditors. Joint accounts between unmarried co-owners receive no comparable protection and are exposed to garnishment for either owner’s debts.

Can a Creditor Freeze a Joint Bank Account in Florida?

A creditor with a judgment against one account holder can freeze the entire joint bank account. The bank does not evaluate exemptions at the freezing stage—it simply freezes every account where the debtor’s name appears. The freeze applies regardless of account type—tenants by the entireties, JTWROS, and tenants in common all get frozen.

The freeze and the garnishment are two different events. A frozen account means the bank is holding the funds; it does not mean the creditor has collected anything. The non-debtor co-owner or the debtor can file a claim of exemption to release protected funds. If the creditor does not contest the claim within the statutory deadline, the garnishment is dissolved and the bank releases the funds.

How Tenants by Entireties Accounts Are Protected

A bank account owned by a married couple as tenants by the entireties cannot be garnished to satisfy a judgment against only one spouse. 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 creates a presumption that any bank account titled jointly by husband and wife is a tenancy by the entirety unless the account documents say otherwise. The 2008 statutory amendment eliminated much of the earlier litigation over whether a particular account met the six traditional common-law 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 Supreme Court confirmed in Loumpos v. Bank One (2025) that the § 655.79 presumption applies even when an account originally started in one spouse’s name and was later converted to a joint account. The court rejected the argument that the old common-law “unity of time” requirement meant both spouses had to be on the account from the opening date. Under Loumpos, what matters is how the account is held now, not how it began.

The court also confirmed that the Fourth District’s earlier holding in Versace v. Urvan, LLC reached the right result on similar facts. In Versace, a creditor tried to garnish an account the debtor’s wife had originally opened alone, and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order allowing garnishment.

Despite the strong statutory presumption, the bank will still freeze an entireties account when it receives a writ of garnishment. The debtor or the non-debtor spouse must file a claim of exemption asserting entireties ownership. 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 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 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 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.

The Signature Card Problem

The most common practical failure occurs when a married couple’s account documentation disclaims entireties ownership. If the signature card lists “Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship” and “Tenants by the Entireties” as options and the couple selects JTWROS, the account loses entireties protection regardless of intent.

The Fourth District’s decision in Storey Mountain LLC v. George (2023) went further: the bank’s own customer agreement can disclaim entireties ownership even if the couple never actively chose a different ownership form. In Storey Mountain, the bank’s deposit agreement stated that joint spousal accounts were “NOT owned as tenants by the entireties” unless expressly designated as such. The court held that language qualified as the “otherwise specified in writing” required by § 655.79 to negate the presumption.

Some banks do not offer entireties as a titling option at all. Married couples should review their signature cards and the full account agreement to confirm that no language disclaims entireties ownership.

How Joint Accounts Between Unmarried Co-Owners Are Treated

Joint accounts between unmarried individuals—a parent and adult child, siblings, or business partners—receive no entireties protection. 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 apply a “good conscience” test to evaluate whether garnished funds in a joint account truly belong to the non-debtor co-owner. In Antuna v. Dawson, the Fourth District 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. The debtor in that scenario is merely managing the parent’s money.

The analysis changes if the debtor actually used the 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 subject to garnishment.

Why Commingled Funds Create a Tracing Problem

Joint accounts frequently contain funds from multiple sources, which creates a tracing burden when 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 because 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. 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 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 under Florida’s head of household statute, but the exemption only applies if the debtor can trace the funds to the exempt source. Head of household protection follows the wages into the bank account—but only so long as the debtor can identify which dollars came from those wages.

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 After a Freeze

When a joint account is frozen 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 every deposit—pay stubs, benefit award letters, bank statements predating the garnishment, and any other records that establish ownership. The co-owner should then file a claim asserting ownership and requesting release of the frozen funds.

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.

Can Transferring Money into a Joint Account Be a Fraudulent Transfer?

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

Even transfers into a legitimate entireties account can be scrutinized. Florida courts have held that an entireties account is protected, but transfers made after the facts giving rise to the debt may still be reversed as fraudulent conveyances. The account itself survives, but the specific transfer can be undone if the creditor shows it was made 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 a marriage, with both spouses’ regular income, are far less vulnerable than accounts created or funded after a lawsuit is filed.