Florida Supreme Court Simplifies Tenancy by the Entireties for Financial Accounts

For decades, married couples in Florida faced a subtle but dangerous trap in asset protection planning. A husband or wife might open a bank account in their own name, and years later, add their spouse to the account. They often assumed that by checking a box marked “Tenancy by the Entireties,” their funds were protected from the individual creditors of either spouse.

Under the strict rules of common law, they were often wrong.

In a landmark decision issued on December 11, 2025, Loumpos v. Bank One, the Florida Supreme Court has finally resolved this issue. The Court held that a joint spousal account can be owned as a tenancy by the entireties—and thus enjoy full creditor protection—even if the account was originally opened by only one spouse.

This ruling represents a significant shift in Florida asset protection law, resolving a conflict between the appellate courts and modernizing how bank accounts are treated under the statutes.

The Common Law Trap: “Time” and “Title”

To understand the significance of Loumpos, you first must understand the common law rules governing tenancy by the entireties (TBE). TBE is a form of ownership reserved for married couples where the property is owned by the marital unit, not the individuals. TBE assets cannot be garnished by a creditor of just one spouse.

Historically, creating a TBE account required the presence of six distinct “unities”:

1. Unity of Possession (joint control)
2. Unity of Interest (identical interest)
3. Unity of Survivorship
4. Unity of Marriage (parties must be married)
5. Unity of Title (interests must originate in the same instrument)
6. Unity of Time (interests must commence simultaneously)

The unities of time and title were the frequent stumbling blocks. If a husband opened an account in 2017, and the wife was added in 2020, their interests did not commence at the same time (no unity of time) nor arguably through the same original instrument (no unity of title). Under strict common law, this failure exposed the account to garnishment by creditors.

The Loumpos Case

The case centered on Linda Loumpos (later Maragoudakis) and her husband, Peter. Peter opened a bank account in his name alone in February 2017. Months later, they executed new signature cards to add Linda, expressly designating the account as “Tenancy by the Entireties.”

A creditor holding a judgment against Linda sought to garnish the account. The creditor argued that because Linda was added later, the unities of time and title were missing, meaning the account could not be TBE and was therefore fair game for garnishment^.

The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the creditor, ruling that common law unities still applied. However, the Fourth District had previously ruled the opposite way in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, creating a conflict for the Supreme Court to resolve^.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Statutes Over Unities

The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s decision, ruling in favor of the couple^.

Crucially, the Court did not rely on its previous famous decision, Beal Bank v. Almand & Associates, noting that Beal Bank did not actually eliminate the time and title requirements^{. Instead, the Court looked to the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes.}

The statute provides:

“Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.”

The Court rejected the argument that an account is only “made” when it is first opened. Instead, the Court found that when an individual account is changed to a joint spousal account, it has effectively been “made in the name of two persons,” thus triggering the statutory presumption of TBE.

The Court concluded that this statute authorizes a joint spousal bank account to be held as TBE even if the account was originally established by one spouse.

Key Takeaways for Asset Protection

This decision provides clarity and relief for married couples and practitioners across Florida. Here are the ramifications:

• Retroactive Protection is Easier: Couples no longer need to close an old individual account and open a brand new joint account to ensure TBE status. Adding a spouse to an existing account and updating the signature card is now sufficient to establish TBE, provided the intent is clear.
• The “Unities” are Relaxed for Financial Accounts: While the unities of time and title remain relevant for other types of property, the Supreme Court has clarified that for financial accounts, the legislature has statutorily abrogated these requirements.
• Intent Still Matters: The statute presumes TBE unless “otherwise specified in writing.” It remains best practice to ensure bank signature cards explicitly state “tenancy by the entireties” to avoid any ambiguity regarding the parties’ intent.
• Creditor Vulnerability: Creditors can no longer rely on the technical timing of when a spouse was added to an account to defeat a claim of tenancy by entireties. If the couple is married and the account is jointly titled, the statutory presumption applies.

The Loumpos decision effectively removes a trap that punished couples for failing to understand the nuances of common law. It aligns Florida law with the practical reality of how families manage their finances.

About the Author

Gideon Alper is a nationally recognized expert in asset protection planning. He has been quoted by major media publications as a leading authority in Florida asset protection and offshore trust formation. Gideon graduated with honors from Emory University Law School and has been practicing law for over 15 years.

Gideon and the Alper Law firm have advised thousands of clients about how to protect their assets from creditors.