Judgment Collection Case Law in Florida

Florida’s judgment collection case law defines what a creditor can do after winning a money judgment and what a debtor can do to resist. The cases span every phase: pre-judgment limits on creditor power, the scope of proceedings supplementary, how courts compel financial disclosure, how judgment liens attach, and how out-of-state judgments become enforceable in Florida.

The Florida Supreme Court is currently considering a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit in Saadi v. Maroun that could reshape proceedings supplementary statewide. That case sits alongside a decade of decisions—from Grupo Mexicano to Shim v. Buechel—that together define the boundaries of creditor enforcement and debtor protection in Florida.

Pre-Judgment Limits: Grupo Mexicano v. Alliance Bond Fund

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), drew the foundational line between pre-judgment and post-judgment creditor rights: a federal court cannot freeze a debtor’s assets before judgment unless a statute authorizes it.

Unsecured noteholders sued a Mexican holding company after it missed interest payments and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the company from transferring its best assets to preferred Mexican creditors. The district court granted the injunction and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision.

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that federal equity jurisdiction, inherited from the English Court of Chancery, did not include the power to freeze assets before judgment. An unsecured creditor has no property interest in the debtor’s assets until a judgment establishes the debt. The requirement that a creditor first obtain a judgment is a fundamental protection in debtor-creditor law.

The practical effect for asset protection is that the pre-judgment period (between a claim arising and a judgment being entered) is when debtors retain full control of their property. Florida state courts may authorize certain pre-judgment remedies under their own statutes, but the federal baseline remains. Once a judgment exists, the court’s enforcement power expands dramatically.

Proceedings Supplementary: § 56.29 and Its Key Cases

Florida Statute § 56.29 gives judgment creditors access to proceedings supplementary, the most powerful post-judgment collection tool in the state. Proceedings supplementary operate within the original case. The court has broad authority to reach transferred assets, order turnover, and enter money judgments against transferees, all without filing a new lawsuit.

Third-Party Reach and Fraudulent Transfer Powers

Section 56.29(3) creates a presumption that personal property transfers made within one year before service are fraudulent if the recipient is the debtor’s spouse, relative, or someone on “confidential terms” with the debtor. The burden shifts to the debtor to prove the transfer was legitimate. If the court finds a transfer was made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, it can void the transfer and direct the sheriff to seize the property.

Section 56.29(9) extends this power further. The court can entertain fraudulent transfer claims under Chapter 726 (Florida’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act) within proceedings supplementary and enter money judgments against any transferee, including one who no longer holds the property. The creditor initiates these claims through a supplemental complaint served under the regular rules of civil procedure.

McGregor v. Fowler White Burnett and Rosenberg v. U.S. Bank

Two recent appellate decisions created a conflict over how far § 56.29 reaches. In McGregor v. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., 332 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Fourth District read the statute narrowly. The court held that certain claims against transferees required independent standing under Chapter 726, limiting what creditors could recover through proceedings supplementary alone.

The Third District rejected that approach in Rosenberg v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 360 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). That court reaffirmed proceedings supplementary as a tool to prevent debtors from benefiting from fraudulent transfers, regardless of how the transfers are structured or how long enforcement has taken.

Saadi v. Maroun: The Pending Certified Question

The Eleventh Circuit certified several questions to the Florida Supreme Court in Saadi v. Maroun, 157 F.4th 1353 (11th Cir. 2025). The certified questions ask whether a judgment creditor can obtain a money judgment directly against a transferee under § 56.29(3) and whether fraudulently transferred funds must remain identifiable to be recoverable. The court also asked whether the 2014 amendments imposed Chapter 726 limitation periods on proceedings supplementary claims.

The outcome will determine whether proceedings supplementary remain an effective enforcement tool or become a procedural dead end for creditors whose debtors shift assets into LLCs, trusts, or family members’ names. If the narrow McGregor interpretation prevails, debtors who transfer assets to insiders may be able to run out the clock. If the broader Rosenberg approach is confirmed, Florida courts retain the power to unwind those transfers within the judgment’s 20-year enforcement period.

No Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Section 56.29(5) strips the ordinary privilege against self-incrimination during proceedings supplementary examinations. A debtor cannot refuse to answer questions on the ground that the answer would reveal participation in a fraudulent transfer or a conveyance designed to defeat creditors. The tradeoff: answers given in proceedings supplementary cannot be used against the debtor in a criminal proceeding.

Post-Judgment Discovery and Debtor Examination

Florida Statute § 56.30, enacted in 2016, codified a separate framework for post-judgment discovery of the debtor’s financial position. On the creditor’s motion, the court orders the judgment debtor to appear and submit to an examination under oath. The examination must cover all business and financial interests that may reveal what property the debtor owns and where it is located.

The § 56.30 examination differs from the fact information sheet required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.977. The court can order the debtor to complete that sheet within 45 days of the judgment. The fact information sheet requires sworn disclosure of bank accounts, real property, vehicles, income sources, and other assets. Failure to complete it can result in contempt proceedings.

Creditors can also use standard discovery tools under Rule 1.560 (interrogatories, depositions, requests for production) in aid of execution. The combination of the fact information sheet, the § 56.30 examination, and Rule 1.560 discovery gives creditors three overlapping mechanisms to locate assets. A debtor who lies on the fact information sheet or during examination faces both contempt sanctions and potential perjury exposure.

Judgment Liens and the 2023 Improvement Act

Florida’s judgment lien statute, § 55.202, was significantly expanded by the Judgment Lien Improvement Act, which took effect on July 1, 2023. Before the amendment, judgment liens could attach only to tangible personal property. Intangible assets like payment intangibles, accounts receivable, and the right to receive rents or royalties were beyond the lien’s reach.

The 2023 Act expanded § 55.202(2) to include payment intangibles, accounts (as defined under Article 9 of the UCC), and their proceeds. Filing a judgment lien certificate with the Department of State now gives a creditor a direct path to a debtor’s non-exempt cash flow.

The Act protects existing secured creditors. Pre-existing, perfected security interests retain priority over judgment liens. An account debtor (the person who owes money to the judgment debtor) can continue paying the judgment debtor directly until served with a complaint or petition from the judgment creditor. But once served, the account debtor must comply with any final order directing payment to the creditor.

For asset protection, the expansion means that business income streams are no longer invisible to judgment creditors. A debtor whose primary wealth consists of receivables, consulting fees, or license payments faces direct exposure to judgment lien attachment that did not exist before July 2023.

Domestication of Foreign Judgments

A creditor holding a judgment from another state can enforce it in Florida through the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (FEFJA), §§ 55.501–55.509. The process requires recording a certified copy of the foreign judgment with the clerk of the circuit court, along with an affidavit containing the debtor’s identifying information. Once recorded, the foreign judgment has the same effect as a Florida judgment.

No execution or enforcement can begin until 30 days after the clerk mails notice to the judgment debtor. During that window, the debtor can file an action contesting domestication. Common defenses include challenging the foreign court’s jurisdiction, raising due process objections, and arguing that the judgment was obtained through fraud.

Florida applies its own 20-year limitations period to domesticated foreign judgments under § 55.081, regardless of shorter deadlines in the issuing state. The Fifth DCA confirmed this principle in Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). A creditor whose judgment would expire in five years under the issuing state’s law can record it in Florida and enforce it for 20 years.

This rule is one reason creditors pursue debtors who relocate to Florida. The state’s generous exemptions—unlimited homestead, protected retirement accounts, tenants by the entirety immunity—attract debtors, but the 20-year enforcement window and broad proceedings supplementary powers give creditors time and tools to collect.

Enforcement Against Foreign Assets: Sargeant Through Shim

A sequence of four decisions over eight years resolved whether Florida courts can compel a debtor to surrender assets located outside the state. The charging orders case law page analyzes Wells Fargo Bank v. Barber in detail, and Schanck v. Gayhart and Shim v. Buechel have their own standalone pages. The summary here focuses on the enforcement principle the sequence established.

In Sargeant v. Al-Saleh, 137 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the Fourth District held that a Florida court could not order a judgment debtor to turn over stock certificates in foreign corporations located in the Bahamas, Jordan, and other countries. The court reasoned that Florida courts lack in rem jurisdiction over foreign property, and expressed concern that allowing turnover orders for foreign assets would eviscerate the domestication of foreign judgment statutes.

The First District disagreed in Schanck v. Gayhart, 245 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), where Alper Law served as co-counsel. The court held that § 678.1121(5) authorizes cancellation and reissuance of membership certificates regardless of where the originals are located. This killed the strategy of moving certificates to foreign jurisdictions to evade collection.

The Florida Supreme Court resolved the conflict unanimously in Shim v. Buechel, No. SC21-249 (Fla. May 26, 2022). Section 56.29(6), the Court held, authorizes a trial court to order a debtor to act on assets located anywhere in the world, provided the court has personal jurisdiction over the debtor. The Court formally disapproved Sargeant. The debtor in Shim held approximately $4 million in a safe at his home in South Korea; the court ordered turnover.

The Shim decision confirmed that the court’s order operates against the debtor, not the property. Compliance is enforced through contempt—a penalty directed at the person. Any asset that the debtor personally holds or controls is reachable regardless of location.

Involuntary Bankruptcy as a Collection Strategy

Creditors sometimes use involuntary bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 303 when a debtor refuses to pay. Filing an involuntary petition activates the bankruptcy trustee’s broad powers to marshal assets. But a bad faith petition exposes the creditor to significant sanctions.

In In re Cannon Express, 280 B.R. 450 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2002), the court found that petitioning creditors filed to coerce a settlement rather than because the debtor was genuinely unable to pay debts as they came due. The court awarded $14,230 in compensatory damages and $35,000 in punitive damages.

The sanctions in In re Adell were far larger—approximately $6.4 million against creditors who filed a bad faith petition. The scale reflected the harm to the debtor’s business operations and reputation.

These cases establish that involuntary bankruptcy is a high-risk strategy. If the debtor has twelve or more creditors, three must join the petition with aggregate claims meeting the statutory minimum. If the petition fails and bad faith is found, the sanctions can dwarf the original judgment.

What the Case Law Means for Asset Protection

The judgment collection cases, taken together, define an enforcement system with few remaining gaps. Grupo Mexicano preserves the debtor’s control before judgment. Once a judgment exists, the court’s powers are broad: proceedings supplementary reach transferred assets, § 56.30 compels sworn financial disclosure, the 2023 Judgment Lien Improvement Act reaches intangible income streams, and Shim v. Buechel confirms that geography alone does not shield assets.

The only structure that places assets beyond a Florida court’s effective enforcement power is one where the debtor no longer holds or controls the assets. A properly structured offshore trust transfers legal ownership to an independent foreign trustee outside U.S. jurisdiction. The court cannot order the trustee to comply because the trustee is not subject to Florida jurisdiction. An order directed at the debtor to repatriate assets fails because the debtor no longer has the legal power to do so.

This distinction separates offshore trusts from domestic strategies. LLCs, DAPTs, and land trusts leave assets under someone subject to Florida court jurisdiction. The charging order case law confirms that LLC membership interests follow the Florida-resident owner. The judgment collection case law confirms that the court’s enforcement power follows the debtor’s control.

The firm represented the debtor in Barber and served as co-counsel in Schanck. Those cases, together with Shim, define why geography does not protect assets from judgment collection and why structural independence from the debtor is the only reliable protection.