Florida Asset Protection Case Law

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

These pages are organized by legal topic. Each topic page analyzes the landmark and practitioner-level decisions that shape current Florida asset protection practice, with holdings, practical implications, and the planning principles each case supports or limits.

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 framework through the presumption established in Beal Bank v. Almand to the Florida Supreme Court’s relaxation of unity requirements in Loumpos v. Dove Investment Corp. (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 charging order and LLC case law defines how creditors reach LLC membership interests. The Olmstead v. FTC decision prompted a legislative overhaul in 2011, and the 2014 Revised LLC Act (Chapter 605) created the current framework distinguishing single-member and multi-member protections. Cases also address foreign-organized LLCs, the executory operating agreement requirement, and why choice-of-law arguments fail for Florida residents.

The fraudulent transfer cases interpret Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, covering 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. The cases range from traditional conveyance challenges to bankruptcy trustee avoidance actions.

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 case law addresses extraterritorial reach, due process requirements, the head-of-household defense, and the distinction between employees and independent contractors for wage exemption purposes.

The judgment collection cases define what a creditor can compel a debtor to do after obtaining a judgment. The Sargeant through Shim sequence resolved a fundamental question: Florida courts can order debtors to act on assets located anywhere in the world. 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 Cases

Several Florida asset protection cases are widely searched by name and have individual analysis pages:

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.

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.