Florida Asset Protection Case Law

Florida asset protection law is defined by court decisions interpreting the state’s exemption statutes, trust code, LLC act, and fraudulent transfer statute. The holdings below establish what creditors can and cannot reach, how courts evaluate the timing and structure of asset transfers, and where each protective tool actually falls short.

Florida’s constitution and statutes create strong protections on paper, but the reported decisions are where those protections have been tested. A homestead exemption that looks unlimited in the statute has boundaries set by the courts. An LLC that appears to shield assets under the act has vulnerabilities the cases expose.

Florida Asset Protection Case Law by Topic

Florida law protects property held as tenants by the entirety from a judgment against only one spouse. The case law traces from the six-unities requirement through the presumption established in Beal Bank v. Almand to the Florida Supreme Court’s relaxation of unity requirements in Loumpos v. Bank One (2025).

The homestead exemption is Florida’s strongest individual creditor protection, with unlimited value coverage under the state constitution. Cases address conversion of non-exempt assets into homestead, equitable liens that survive the exemption, and the boundaries of the “tie goes to the debtor” rule that courts apply when exemption status is disputed.

Florida’s Revised LLC Act (Chapter 605) distinguishes single-member and multi-member protections, but the charging order and LLC case law defines how those protections hold up in practice. The Olmstead v. FTC decision prompted a legislative overhaul in 2011, and cases since address foreign-organized LLCs, the executory operating agreement requirement, and why choice-of-law arguments fail for Florida residents.

Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act gives creditors the power to reverse asset transfers made with intent to hinder or defraud. The fraudulent transfer case law covers badges of fraud analysis, the statute of limitations, tracing rules for commingled funds, and the boundary between lawful asset protection planning and transfers that courts will set aside.

Florida exempts several asset categories from creditor claims, including retirement accounts, annuities, wages, and life insurance cash value. The non-homestead exemption case law addresses inherited IRAs after Clark v. Rameker, the statutory versus constitutional distinction for annuity protection, and the line between wages eligible for head-of-household protection and business income that does not qualify.

Garnishment is the primary collection mechanism creditors use against bank accounts and receivables. The cases address extraterritorial reach, due process requirements, the head-of-household defense, and the distinction between employees and independent contractors for wage exemption purposes.

After obtaining a judgment, a creditor must still collect. Florida courts can compel debtors to act on assets located anywhere in the world, and the judgment collection case law defines the boundaries of that power. The Sargeant through Shim sequence resolved a fundamental question: the only assets beyond a Florida court’s effective reach are those held by an independent foreign trustee who is not subject to the court’s authority.

Landmark Florida Asset Protection Cases

Three Florida Supreme Court decisions shape the core of asset protection case law. Beal Bank v. Almand (Fla. 2001) established the presumption that jointly held property between married couples qualifies as tenants by the entirety. Olmstead v. FTC (Fla. 2010) held that a judgment creditor could reach a single-member LLC’s assets, prompting the Olmstead Patch and the 2014 Revised LLC Act. Havoco v. Hill (Fla. 2001) addressed the conversion of non-exempt assets into homestead property.

Three cases involve the firm directly. In Wells Fargo Bank v. Barber (M.D. Fla. 2015), the court held that an LLC membership interest is intangible personal property following the owner, applying Florida law to a Nevis-organized LLC. In Schanck v. Gayhart (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), the court ordered cancellation and reissuance of membership certificates that the debtor had moved to Canada.

The Fifth DCA’s decision in BankFirst v. UBS Paine Webber (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) established that attorneys who implement lawful asset protection planning are not liable under Florida’s fraudulent transfer statute.

The Shim v. Buechel decision (Fla. 2022) resolved the conflict between Florida’s district courts and confirmed that trial courts can compel debtors to act on foreign assets. Together with Barber and Schanck, this case defines why properly structured offshore trusts with independent foreign trustees remain the only reliable protection against determined judgment creditors operating through Florida courts.