Asset Freezes in Florida: When Courts Can Freeze Your Assets

A court-ordered asset freeze prevents a person from moving, spending, or transferring 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.

For someone facing a lawsuit, this is a practical advantage. A defendant in a contract dispute, malpractice claim, or business tort case typically still has time to purchase a homestead, fund exempt accounts, or move assets into protected structures. Fraudulent transfer limits apply, but the planning window stays open. An asset freeze eliminates that window.

Why Prejudgment Asset Freezes Are Rare in Florida

The U.S. Supreme Court established the baseline rule in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund (1999). 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 legislative matter, not a judicial one.

Florida state courts follow the same principle. A plaintiff who sues for money damages, whether for breach of contract, personal injury, or business tort, cannot obtain a court order freezing the defendant’s bank accounts, investments, or other assets before winning a judgment. The plaintiff must wait, litigate, win, and then pursue collection through the post-judgment tools Florida provides.

When Can a Court Freeze Assets Before Judgment?

Three categories of cases fall outside the Grupo Mexicano prohibition, and a fourth category arises from the court’s own authority to enforce its orders.

Equitable claims. Courts can freeze assets when the plaintiff seeks equitable relief rather than money damages. Claims for rescission, restitution, constructive trust, or accounting invoke 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, but the court must find a genuine connection between the frozen assets and the equitable relief sought. Plaintiffs cannot tack on a nominal equitable claim just to defeat the Grupo Mexicano rule.

Government enforcement actions. Federal and state agencies have broad statutory authority to freeze assets. 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 are the most common type of prejudgment asset freeze in practice. Federal agencies are exempt from the bond requirement that applies to private plaintiffs, which makes these freezes faster and cheaper to obtain.

Prejudgment writs of attachment. Florida’s Chapter 76 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, is actually removing property from Florida, or is fraudulently concealing property to avoid paying the debt. 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 hard to satisfy and the double-bond obligation creates real financial risk for the creditor.

Discovery sanctions. Courts can also freeze assets as a sanction for litigation misconduct. When a defendant repeatedly violates discovery orders or refuses to comply with court directives, a judge can enter a default and then restrain the defendant from transferring any assets—even before damages have been determined. The restraint is not directed at specific property but at the person, making it broader than a typical freeze.

What Does a Motion to Freeze Assets Look Like?

A motion to freeze assets is typically styled as a motion for preliminary injunction or a motion for temporary restraining order. The plaintiff files a motion supported by affidavits or declarations setting out the factual basis for the request. In most cases, the court holds a hearing before deciding.

Florida courts apply a four-part test under Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. The plaintiff must show 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. A claim that the defendant might not have enough assets to pay a future money judgment does not qualify because a money judgment itself is the adequate legal remedy. The plaintiff must show something more concrete: evidence that the defendant is actively dissipating assets, destroying records, or transferring property to frustrate collection.

Even when the court grants a freeze, Florida law requires the plaintiff to post a bond sufficient to compensate the defendant for any damages the injunction causes if the plaintiff loses. A $2 million lawsuit might require a bond of $200,000 or more, and the bond is forfeited if the freeze was wrongly imposed.

What Happens If You Violate an Asset Freeze?

Violating an asset freeze is contempt of court. A person who transfers, hides, or dissipates assets in defiance of a freeze order can face civil contempt sanctions—including fines and incarceration until the person complies. Courts can also extend the freeze to reach assets held by third parties who are assisting the debtor.

In Faulkner v. Kornman, a court issued a temporary restraining order not only against the debtor but against entities controlled by the debtor’s family members who were assisting with suspected fraudulent transfers. The order froze assets held by the third-party entities and prohibited any further transfers. Anyone who receives notice of a freeze order and assists with transfers can be held in contempt.

Post-Judgment Freezes

Once a creditor wins a judgment, the rules change. Florida’s judgment collection tools give creditors several mechanisms to reach debtor assets, and some of them operate like a freeze.

A writ of garnishment served on a bank 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.

A judgment creditor can serve garnishment writs on multiple banks simultaneously and use discovery in aid of execution to locate additional accounts. In combination with a judgment lien recorded against real property, these tools can immobilize most of a debtor’s financial life until the debt is addressed.

Family Law Asset Freezes

Florida family law proceedings operate under different rules than civil litigation. Florida Statute § 61.11 authorizes courts to enter injunctions restricting either spouse from disposing of or transferring assets while a dissolution case is pending.

Many Florida circuits issue standing financial injunctions automatically with every dissolution filing. These injunctions can freeze bank accounts, investment accounts, and other financial assets without the four-part test that applies in civil cases. The orders are served on the spouse’s banks, brokerage firms, and other financial institutions—often before the spouse knows a divorce has been filed.

The scope of family law freezes has been criticized as reaching beyond the statute’s original intent. Section 61.11 was designed to protect alimony and support obligations, but courts have extended it to cover equitable distribution claims as well. That extension has gone largely unchallenged, even though the statutory text does not explicitly authorize it.

How Asset Protection Planning Relates to Freeze Risk

Most Florida civil lawsuits for money damages do not result in prejudgment asset freezes. A person 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 limits.

The risk of a freeze increases when the lawsuit involves equitable claims, government enforcement, or evidence that assets are being actively moved. A defendant under SEC investigation or facing an FTC enforcement action should assume a freeze is possible. That means having asset protection structures in place before any claim arises, not after the complaint is filed.