December 2025 delivered an important Florida asset-protection decision. In Loumpos v. Dove Investment Corp., the Florida Supreme Court resolved a long-standing conflict among the district courts of appeal and clarified—once and for all—that Florida spouses may convert an individually owned Florida bank account into a protected tenancy-by-the-entireties (“TBE”) account simply by retitling it, without satisfying traditional common-law “unity of time” or “unity of title” requirements.
For estate planners, tax advisors, and asset-protection practitioners, Loumpos is a landmark decision—but also one that invites misunderstanding if applied too broadly or casually.
Background: Why Loumpos Matters
Tenancy by the entireties is one of Florida’s most powerful creditor-protection doctrines. Property held as TBE by married spouses is generally immune from execution by creditors of only one spouse.
Until now, however, there was uncertainty about whether a bank account originally opened by one spouse could later be directly converted into TBE property. Two Florida appellate courts had reached opposite conclusions:
-
The Second District held that such conversions failed because they violated the common-law unities of time and title.
-
The Fourth District reached the opposite conclusion on nearly identical facts.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to resolve this certified conflict—and decisively sided with the Fourth District.
The Holding: Unity of Time and Title Are Gone—for Florida Bank Accounts
The Court held that Florida Statutes § 655.79(1), as amended in 2008, eliminates the common-law unity requirements for spousal bank accounts.
Specifically:
“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 emphasized that this language applies not only at account inception, but also during account maintenance, including retitling by execution of a new signature card.
Bottom line:
A Florida bank account:
-
Originally opened by one spouse
-
Later retitled into both spouses’ names
-
With a signature card expressly designating “tenancy by the entireties”
is presumptively entireties property, even though the account did not begin that way.
Why Beal Bank Did Not Control the Outcome
The Court carefully explained that its seminal 2001 decision in Beal Bank v. Almand never addressed post-opening account conversions. Beal Bank explicitly limited its analysis to situations “if the unities required to establish ownership as a tenancy by the entireties exist.”
Because Beal Bank declined to address later retitling, the Court rejected arguments that it silently preserved unity requirements for converted accounts.
Statutory Interpretation: “Deposit or Account Made” Means What It Says
A key analytical move in Loumpos was the Court’s focus on statutory language:
-
The statute refers to “any deposit or account made” in the name of husband and wife.
-
“Deposit made” clearly refers to ongoing activity, not merely account opening.
-
Reading “account made” more narrowly would improperly ignore half the sentence.
The Court also emphasized that § 655.79(1):
-
Contemplates signature cards executed during account maintenance, not just opening
-
Allows rebuttal only for fraud, undue influence, or clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent
-
Contains no reference whatsoever to common-law unities
The presumption against implied changes to common law could not override clear statutory text.
Practical Implications for Estate Planning and Asset Protection
1. Retitling Florida Bank Accounts Is Now Outcome-Determinative
For Florida bank accounts, the signature card controls. If it clearly designates tenancy by the entireties and is signed by both spouses, the account is presumptively protected.
This dramatically simplifies:
-
Judgment-creditor planning for married couples
-
Cleanup of legacy accounts opened before marriage
-
Coordination between wage exemptions and deposit planning
2. Source of Funds Does Not Matter
In Loumpos, the account was funded entirely with the non-debtor spouse’s wages. The Court nonetheless upheld entireties status.
3. Fraudulent Transfer Law Still Applies
The decision does not create a creditor-proof shield in all cases.
Under § 655.79(2) and Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, creditors may still rebut the presumption by proving:
-
Fraudulent intent
-
Undue influence
-
Clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent (e.g., “convenience signer” situations)
Notably, the Loumpos facts themselves would likely not support a fraudulent transfer claim, because the transfer moved assets from a non-debtor spouse into the debtor spouse’s reach, not the other way around.
4. This Case Applies Only to Florida Bank Accounts
A critical—and often overlooked—limitation:
§ 655.79 applies only to deposit accounts opened in Florida.
It does not automatically extend to:
-
Brokerage accounts
-
Securities
-
Promissory notes
-
Tangible personal property
-
Out-of-state accounts
Clients may incorrectly assume any jointly titled asset gains entireties protection. That assumption is wrong—and potentially dangerous.
5. Account Agreements May Defeat TBE Status
The statute applies “unless otherwise specified in writing.”
Some financial institutions:
-
Disclaim tenancy by the entireties in their account agreements
-
Reserve unilateral setoff rights against TBE accounts
-
Use ambiguous titling that defaults to joint tenancy, not TBE
Practitioners should review the actual account agreement, not just the signature card.
Open Questions After Loumpos
The decision leaves several issues unresolved, including:
-
Whether similar reasoning applies to brokerage or investment accounts
-
Whether one spouse’s signature alone can ever suffice
-
Treatment of accounts converted before the 2008 statutory amendment
-
Whether “joint tenancy with right of survivorship” language qualifies as “otherwise specified in writing”
-
Enforceability of contractual bank setoff provisions against TBE accounts
Strategic Planning Considerations
For higher-net-worth or higher-risk clients, Loumpos should be viewed as one tool—not a complete solution.
Common next-level strategies include:
-
TBE-owned LLCs for personal property
-
Charging-order-protected entity structures
-
Post-death asset-protection obligations for surviving spouses
-
Coordination with federal tax lien and bankruptcy rules (which may override state protections)
Conclusion
Loumpos v. Dove Investment Corp. represents a major expansion of creditor protection for married couples in Florida, grounded in a plain-text reading of § 655.79(1). By eliminating common-law unity requirements for Florida bank accounts, the Court has made tenancy-by-the-entireties ownership easier to implement—but also easier to misunderstand.
Used thoughtfully, it is a powerful planning tool. Used carelessly, it invites litigation and disappointment.
Advisors and clients alike should approach this decision with both enthusiasm and precision.
