Florida couples have long been told that putting a bank account in both spouses’ names as “tenants by the entireties” can protect it from the individual creditors of either spouse. Creditors see those same words as a barrier to garnishment. The recurring problem has been what happens when an account doesn’t start as “ours” at all. If one spouse opens an account alone and later adds the other spouse with “tenants by the entireties” checked, is that account actually protected?
On December 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida answered that in Loumpos v. Bank One, N.A., Case No. SC2024-1256. The Court held that a bank account that begins in one spouse’s name and is later converted into a joint marital account can be treated as a tenancy by the entireties under section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes, so long as the bank documents do not specify some other form of ownership. In practical terms, if the current signature card and account agreement support tenancy by the entireties, the law presumes the account is protected from the individual creditors of either spouse, even though it did not start that way.
Tenancy by the entireties is simply a way for married couples in Florida to own property together as a single unit. A creditor with a judgment against only one spouse generally cannot reach entireties property; it needs a judgment against both. With real estate, this usually shows up in the deed. With bank accounts, it shows up in how the account is titled and what the bank’s paperwork says.
Years ago, in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, the Florida Supreme Court held that when a married couple opens a joint bank account and the bank’s documents do not clearly select some other form of ownership, the account is presumed to be held as tenants by the entireties. Beal Bank dealt with accounts opened jointly from day one. It did not decide what happens when an account starts with one spouse and is later converted to a joint account.
In 2008, the Legislature amended section 655.79(1), the statute that governs multi-party accounts. It provides that any deposit or account made in the name of two people who are husband and wife is considered a tenancy by the entireties unless otherwise specified in writing. That creates a statutory presumption in favor of entireties ownership whenever an account is titled in both spouses’ names, unless the written contract, agreement, or signature card clearly opts out.
Even with that statute, Florida’s intermediate courts split. In the Loumpos case in the Second District, a creditor had an old judgment against a wife. Years later, the husband opened an account in his own name. The couple later signed new signature cards listing both names and choosing “tenants by the entireties.” The husband’s income funded the account. When the creditor tried to garnish it, the couple claimed entireties protection.
The Second District rejected that argument. It leaned on older common-law concepts that said spouses had to acquire their interests at the same time and through the same instrument. Because the account started in the husband’s name alone, the court said those “unities” were missing and the account could not be held as tenants by the entireties at all, no matter what the statute or the signature card said.
The Fourth District, in a separate case called Versace v. Uruven, LLC, took the opposite approach. It treated section 655.79(1) and Beal Bank as creating a strong presumption that any account in the names of husband and wife is entireties property unless the bank documents clearly say otherwise, and it enforced an express “tenancy by the entireties” designation even where one spouse had opened the account first.
The Supreme Court in Loumpos resolved that conflict. First, it confirmed that Beal Bank did not answer this fact pattern because it involved accounts opened jointly from the start. Then it focused on the language of section 655.79(1). The key phrase is that an account “made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife” is considered a tenancy by the entireties unless otherwise specified in writing. The creditor argued that “made” refers only to the opening moment. The Court rejected that narrow reading and held that an account is “made in the name” of the spouses when it is converted into joint names as well. The statute is concerned with how the account is held now, not how it began.
The Court also pointed out that section 655.79(1) directs courts to look to the written contract, agreement, or signature card to see if some other ownership form was chosen. It does not ask courts to re-apply old unity requirements to defeat the statute. Courts are to start with the presumption of entireties ownership for husband-and-wife accounts and then determine whether the paperwork clearly specifies something different.
On that basis, the Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s decision and effectively adopted the Fourth District’s approach. A single-name account can be converted into a tenancy-by-the-entireties account when both spouses later sign documents making it a joint account and designating entireties ownership, unless the written terms opt out.
For married couples in Florida, this is a practical clarification. Many households have long-standing accounts that began in one spouse’s name. Loumpos confirms that, with proper bank documentation, those accounts can be brought under tenancy-by-the-entireties protection going forward, as long as the forms are correctly completed and do not select a different structure. That does not make every joint account untouchable; sham transfers and similar abuse can still be challenged. But in ordinary situations, the statutory presumption has real teeth.
For judgment creditors, Loumpos is a reminder that genuine marital accounts have significant protection under Florida law. Arguments based only on how the account started and on missing “unities” will not carry the day. Collection efforts need to focus on what the current account documents say and whether there is evidence to overcome the statutory presumption, such as fraud or a clear written choice of some other ownership form.
For banks and for business owners, professionals, and investors, the message is the same: account titling and paperwork matter. The Supreme Court has clarified how section 655.79(1) applies to spousal bank accounts. Planning and enforcement in Florida need to be built around that clarification, not around assumptions that a single-name start forever prevents an account from becoming “ours.”
Consulting with experienced legal professionals can help navigate these intricate issues and safeguard your business interests. Rosenthal Law Group is here to assist you for all your business litigation matters. You can reach us at www.rosenthalcounsel.com or (954) 384-9200.