- with readers working within the Media & Information industries
For years, married couples meeting with estate planning attorneys have asked a simple question: "Why can't I just add my spouse's name to the account?" The answer often came with a discouraging explanation and a sigh of frustration. Attorneys typically warned that adding a spouse's name alone would not create a special form of joint ownership known as a tenancy by the entirety. Doing it "the right way" usually meant extra paperwork, new accounts, and unnecessary hassle.
That frustration may now be largely a thing of the past.
A tenancy by the entirety (often shortened to "TBE") is a form of ownership available only to married couples. TBE ownership offers two major benefits. First, it provides strong asset protection: creditors of only one spouse generally cannot reach TBE property. Second, it avoids probate because, upon the death of one spouse, the property automatically passes to the surviving spouse.
For property to qualify as TBE, six legal elements — known as "unities" — must be present:
- Possession (both spouses have joint ownership and control of the property);
- Interest (each spouse has an identical interest);
- Title (the ownership comes from the same legal document);
- Time (both interests begin at the same time);
- Survivorship; and
- Marriage (the spouses are married when the property is titled in both names).
For many years, lawyers advised that simply adding a spouse's name to an existing account failed to create TBE ownership, mainly because the spouses' interests did not begin at the same time. To satisfy the "unity of time," couples were often told they needed to open a brand-new joint account and move the money into it.
In practice, this meant extra forms, extra fees, and unnecessary frustration. The only real difference between the "approved" method and simply adding a spouse to an existing account was an administrative reshuffling of paperwork. With the Loumpos decision, that distinction has now been significantly narrowed (much to the relief of married couples and their advisors alike).
On December 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida issued an important decision clarifying this issue. The Court held that when a bank account held by one spouse is later changed into a joint account with the other spouse, the joint spousal bank account can be treated as having been "made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife" under section 655.79, Florida Statutes.
The case, Loumpos v. Bank One, N.A., Case No. SC2024-1256, involved a married couple and a creditor. Prior to the marriage, a judgment had been entered against the wife individually. Following the marriage, over a decade later, the husband opened a bank account in his own name and later added his wife as a joint owner and indicated it as a TBE account. When the wife's creditor tried to collect from that joint account, the couple argued that the account was owned as a tenancy by the entirety and therefore protected from the creditor, even though the "unity of time" wasn't satisfied at the time the account was created. The Court agreed.
The Court ruled that when a bank account starts in one spouse's name and is later converted into a joint marital account, the law presumes the account is protected from the individual creditors of either spouse—even though it did not begin as a joint account.
It should be noted that the statutory presumption (in section 655.79) exists "unless otherwise specified in writing" in a given financial institution's account agreement, so a closer review of such agreement may be necessary before adding a spouse to an account to obtain TBE ownership status. Further, it remains unresolved how broadly this presumption of TBE ownership can be expanded, if at all, to other financial accounts outside the scope of deposit accounts under section 655.79 (i.e., brokerage accounts, promissory notes, and other intangible assets).
This decision serves as a reminder that Florida law provides substantial protections for property held jointly by married couples. This is not to say joint titling is an untouchable or impervious method (i.e., sham transfers, fraud, and abusive transactions will still be ripe for challenge), but with proper documentation and clear terms, the statutory presumption of TBE ownership has never been clearer.
The full text of the Loumpos case can be found here (LINK).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
