The Supreme Court of Florida has clarified state law over whether an account, which was opened by one individual and then changed to a joint account, can be subject to a garnishment owed by the individual who was added to the account.
The background: The case began after the plaintiff sought to protect a bank account from garnishment. The account was originally opened by the defendant’s spouse. Months later, the couple executed new signature cards converting it into a joint account and explicitly designating it as a tenancy by the entireties.
- The garnishing creditor argued that because the spouse’s name was added later, the common law unities of time and title were not met, making the account subject to garnishment for the plaintiff’s individual debt.
- The trial court and the state Second District Court of Appeal sided with the creditor, holding that the traditional unities still applied and that the account could not qualify as a tenancy by the entireties because it was not opened jointly from inception. The appellate court also certified conflict with a 2022 decision from the Fourth District that reached the opposite conclusion under nearly identical circumstances.
The ruling: The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court, finding that Florida’s statutory framework, specifically a 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes, changed the legal landscape.
- The Court noted that the statute states, “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 justices emphasized that the phrase “deposit or account made” applies not only to accounts opened jointly at inception, but also to accounts later converted into joint spousal accounts.
- In a key line, the Court wrote that a proper reading of the statute “precludes interpreting the phrase ‘account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife’ to mean ‘account originally made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife.’”
- Because the statute establishes a presumption of tenancy by the entireties for spousal accounts unless explicitly disclaimed, the Court held that the converted account was exempt from individual garnishment. It quashed the Second District’s decision and approved the reasoning of the Fourth District.
- The decision underscores the need to closely examine signature cards, account titling, and written ownership designations. Once a married couple jointly holds an account, even if the joint status was added later, the statutory presumption of tenancy by the entireties may shield that account from individual creditors unless a written document specifies otherwise.
