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 cover every phase of enforcement: pre-judgment limits on creditor power, proceedings supplementary to reach transferred assets, compelled financial disclosure, judgment lien attachment, and domestication of out-of-state judgments.

These decisions matter for asset protection because they draw the boundary between what Florida courts can and cannot reach. Judgment collection cases sit alongside Florida’s asset protection case law on homestead exemptions, fraudulent transfers, and charging orders. A debtor who understands the enforcement system can structure assets around its limits. A debtor who does not will discover those limits the hard way.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), that a federal court cannot freeze a debtor’s assets before judgment unless a statute authorizes it. The case involved unsecured noteholders who sued a Mexican holding company after missed interest payments. The creditors sought a preliminary injunction preventing the company from transferring its best assets to preferred Mexican creditors. The Supreme Court reversed the injunction in a 5-4 decision.

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion traced federal equity jurisdiction back to the English Court of Chancery. That historical jurisdiction did not include the power to freeze assets before a judgment established the debt. An unsecured creditor has no property interest in the debtor’s assets until a court says money is owed. The requirement that a creditor first obtain a judgment before pursuing assets is a foundational principle of debtor-creditor law.

The practical consequence for asset protection planning is that the window between a claim arising and a judgment being entered is when the debtor retains full control of property. Florida state courts may authorize limited pre-judgment remedies under their own statutes, but the federal baseline from Grupo Mexicano remains. Once a judgment exists, the court’s enforcement power expands to include asset freezes, garnishment, and proceedings supplementary.

Proceedings Supplementary and Its Key Cases

Proceedings supplementary under Florida law give judgment creditors the most powerful post-judgment collection tool in the state. The creditor initiates proceedings within the original case. The court has broad authority to reach transferred assets, order turnover, and enter money judgments against transferees without the creditor filing a new lawsuit. Proceedings supplementary operate as an extension of the case that produced the original judgment.

Third-Party Reach and Fraudulent Transfer Powers

Personal property transfers to insiders carry a presumption of fraud if they occurred within one year before the creditor served proceedings supplementary. Insiders include the debtor’s spouse, relatives, and anyone 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.

A separate provision allows the court to hear fraudulent transfer claims under Chapter 726 (Florida’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act) within proceedings supplementary. The court can 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 appellate decisions created a direct conflict over how far proceedings supplementary can reach. In McGregor v. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., 332 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Fourth District read the statute narrowly. That court held that monetary judgments against transferees are generally unavailable, that fraudulent transfer claims are subject to Chapter 726’s strict limitation periods, and that the statute only covers tangible personal property a sheriff can immediately seize. Under this interpretation, a debtor who successfully hid assets for a few years could permanently defeat collection.

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. The conflict left trial courts choosing between irreconcilable appellate authorities.

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), asking the court to resolve the McGregor–Rosenberg split. The certified questions ask whether a judgment creditor can obtain a money judgment directly against a transferee 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 and whether equitable tolling applies when the debtor conceals assets or disappears.

The stakes are high for both sides. If McGregor‘s narrow reading prevails, debtors who transfer assets to insiders and run out the four-year limitations clock may permanently defeat collection even though the judgment itself lasts 20 years. If Rosenberg‘s broader interpretation is confirmed, Florida courts retain the power to unwind insider transfers throughout the judgment’s full enforcement period. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision will reshape proceedings supplementary practice statewide.

No Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Proceedings Supplementary

Florida law strips the ordinary Fifth Amendment privilege 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 is that answers given during proceedings supplementary cannot be used against the debtor in a criminal proceeding. This immunity provision makes proceedings supplementary one of the few civil contexts where a debtor cannot invoke the privilege to avoid disclosing asset movements.

Post-Judgment Discovery and Debtor Examination

Florida courts have three overlapping mechanisms to force a judgment debtor to reveal financial information. The first is the fact information sheet required by Florida Rule 1.977. The court can order the debtor to complete it within 45 days after judgment. The fact information sheet requires sworn disclosure of bank accounts, real property, vehicles, income sources, and other assets.

The second is the debtor examination, codified in 2016. The creditor can bring the debtor before the court, place them under oath, and question them about every business and financial interest they hold. The examination goes beyond the fact information sheet because the creditor’s attorney can probe follow-up questions, challenge inconsistencies, and explore transactions the sheet would not capture.

The third is standard discovery in aid of execution—interrogatories, depositions, and requests for production. A creditor can subpoena bank records directly, bypassing the debtor entirely. The combination of all three tools means a debtor who lies on the fact information sheet or during examination faces both contempt sanctions and potential perjury exposure. From a practical standpoint, hiding assets from a determined creditor with access to these tools is far harder than most debtors expect.

Judgment Liens and the 2023 Improvement Act

Florida’s judgment lien law expanded substantially when the Judgment Lien Improvement Act took effect on July 1, 2023. Before the amendment, judgment liens could attach only to tangible personal property. Intangible assets—payment intangibles, accounts receivable, the right to receive rents or royalties—were beyond a judgment lien’s reach.

The 2023 Act expanded the statute to include payment intangibles, accounts as defined under Article 9 of the UCC, and their proceeds. Filing a judgment lien certificate with the Florida Department of State now gives a creditor a direct path to a debtor’s non-exempt cash flow. For a business owner whose primary wealth consists of receivables, consulting fees, or license payments, this expansion created exposure that did not exist before July 2023.

The Act protects existing secured creditors by preserving the priority of pre-existing perfected security interests. 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. Once served, the account debtor must comply with any final order directing payment to the creditor.

Domestication of Foreign Judgments

A creditor holding a money judgment from another state can enforce that judgment in Florida through the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (FEFJA). 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 carries the same enforcement power 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 contest 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 judgments under the enforcement statute, 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 two decades.

This rule is one reason creditors pursue debtors who relocate to Florida. The state’s generous exemptions 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.

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 jurisdiction over foreign property and worried that allowing turnover orders for foreign assets would effectively override the domestication-of-judgment process.

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

The conflict between Sargeant and Schanck was joined by the Fifth District’s reversal of a trial court in what became Shim v. Buechel, No. SC21-249 (Fla. May 26, 2022). The Florida Supreme Court resolved the issue unanimously: Florida courts can 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 v. Buechel held approximately $4 million in a safe at his home in South Korea. The court ordered turnover.

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

Involuntary Bankruptcy as a Collection Strategy

Creditors sometimes file involuntary bankruptcy petitions under federal law when a debtor refuses to pay, activating the bankruptcy trustee’s broad powers to marshal assets. A bad-faith petition, however, exposes the creditor to severe 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 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

Florida’s judgment collection cases 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, post-judgment discovery 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 from a Florida court.

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 trust 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 Wells Fargo Bank v. Barber and served as co-counsel in Schanck v. Gayhart. Those cases, together with Shim, define why geography alone does not protect assets and why structural independence from the debtor is the only reliable defense.