Asset Freezes in Florida: When Courts Can Freeze Your Assets

A court-ordered asset freeze prevents a debtor from moving, spending, or restructuring assets while litigation is pending. Prejudgment asset freezes are rare in Florida civil cases because federal and state law generally prohibit freezing a defendant’s property before a judgment is entered in an ordinary claim for money damages.

The distinction matters for asset protection planning. A debtor who faces a lawsuit typically has time to restructure assets—purchasing a homestead, funding exempt accounts, or transferring property into protected structures. An asset freeze eliminates that window entirely.

The Grupo Mexicano Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund (1999) that a federal court does not have inherent authority to freeze a defendant’s assets to preserve them for potential collection of money damages. The Court concluded that granting such power would give plaintiffs a weapon that did not exist at common law and that creating the remedy was a matter for Congress, not the judiciary.

The decision applies directly in federal court. Florida state courts have generally followed the same principle, holding that a prejudgment freeze is an extraordinary remedy that is not available in a standard breach of contract or tort action seeking only monetary relief.

The practical result is that a plaintiff who sues a defendant for money damages in Florida—whether for breach of contract, personal injury, malpractice, or other common claims—cannot obtain a court order freezing the defendant’s bank accounts, investments, or other assets before winning a judgment.

When Prejudgment Freezes Are Available

Three categories of cases fall outside the Grupo Mexicano prohibition.

Courts can freeze assets when the plaintiff seeks equitable relief rather than money damages. Claims for rescission, restitution, constructive trust, or accounting involve the court’s equitable powers, and a preliminary injunction to preserve disputed assets is a recognized equitable remedy. A plaintiff pursuing both equitable and legal claims in the same lawsuit can obtain a freeze if the court finds a genuine nexus between the frozen assets and the equitable relief sought.

Federal and state agencies have broad statutory authority to freeze assets during enforcement actions. The SEC, FTC, CFPB, and state regulators can obtain temporary restraining orders that freeze all of a defendant’s assets, often without prior notice, when the underlying statute grants the agency equitable enforcement powers. Government enforcement freezes account for the majority of prejudgment asset freezes in practice.

Florida’s prejudgment writ of attachment under Chapter 76 of the Florida Statutes provides a narrow mechanism for private creditors to seize property before judgment. The creditor must file a verified complaint or affidavit establishing that the debtor is fraudulently disposing of property to avoid paying the debt, is actually removing property from Florida, or is fraudulently concealing property to avoid payment.

The creditor must also post a bond equal to twice the amount of the claimed debt. Courts rarely grant writs of attachment because the statutory requirements are difficult to satisfy and the bond obligation creates significant financial risk for the creditor.

Temporary Injunctions in Florida

A Florida court can issue a temporary injunction under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 to freeze assets during litigation, but only when the plaintiff satisfies a four-part test. The plaintiff must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, a substantial likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm, the absence of an adequate remedy at law, and that the injunction serves the public interest.

The irreparable harm requirement is the primary obstacle for most creditor-plaintiffs. A claim that the defendant might not have enough assets to pay a future money judgment does not qualify as irreparable harm because a money judgment itself is the adequate legal remedy. The plaintiff must show something more—evidence that the defendant is actively dissipating assets, destroying records, or transferring property to frustrate collection.

Even when a temporary injunction is granted, Florida law requires the plaintiff to post a bond sufficient to compensate the defendant for any damages caused by the injunction if the plaintiff ultimately loses the case.

Post-Judgment Freezes

After a creditor obtains a judgment, the legal landscape changes entirely. Florida’s judgment collection framework gives a judgment creditor several tools to reach debtor assets, including writs of garnishment to freeze bank accounts and intercept wages, writs of execution to seize non-exempt property through the sheriff’s office, and proceedings supplementary to reach assets held by third parties.

A writ of garnishment served on a bank effectively freezes the debtor’s accounts immediately upon receipt. The bank must hold the funds and respond to the court within the statutory deadline. The debtor receives notice only after the freeze is already in place and must file a claim of exemption to recover protected funds.

Post-judgment collection is a separate process from a prejudgment asset freeze, but the practical effect on the debtor can be similar. A judgment creditor with a writ of garnishment can freeze multiple accounts simultaneously and use discovery in aid of execution to locate additional assets.

Family Law Exceptions

Florida family law proceedings operate under different rules. Florida Statute § 61.11 authorizes courts to enter injunctions restricting either spouse from disposing of assets during a dissolution of marriage. Many Florida circuits issue standing financial injunctions as a matter of course with every dissolution filing.

These injunctions can freeze bank accounts, investment accounts, and other financial assets without the standard four-part temporary injunction test that applies in civil litigation. The breadth of family law freezes has been criticized as extending beyond the statute’s original scope, which was limited to protecting alimony and support obligations.

Asset Protection Implications

A debtor who learns of a potential lawsuit has a limited window to restructure assets before litigation begins. If the plaintiff obtains a prejudgment freeze, that window closes. Understanding when freezes are and are not available is central to effective asset protection planning.

Most Florida civil lawsuits for money damages do not result in prejudgment asset freezes. A debtor facing a contract dispute, personal injury claim, or business tort lawsuit can generally continue to manage and restructure assets during the litigation, subject to fraudulent transfer limitations.

The risk of a freeze increases substantially when the lawsuit involves equitable claims, government enforcement, or evidence of active asset dissipation. Debtors in these categories should assume that a freeze is possible and plan accordingly—ideally well before any claim arises.