Creditor Remedies for Fraudulent Transfers in Florida

Florida law provides creditors with several remedies when a debtor makes a fraudulent transfer. Section 726.108 of the Florida Statutes enumerates the available relief, which ranges from voiding the transfer entirely to appointing a receiver over the transferred asset. The remedies are equitable in nature, and a court has broad discretion to fashion relief that fits the circumstances of each case.

Creditors can pursue these remedies through a standalone lawsuit under the fraudulent transfer statute or through proceedings supplementary under the judgment enforcement provisions. The choice of procedural vehicle affects the scope of available relief, the applicable statute of limitations, and whether a money judgment can be entered against the transferee. Understanding the distinction between these two paths is critical to effective judgment collection in Florida.

Avoidance of the Transfer

The primary remedy under section 726.108(1)(a) is avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim. Avoidance means the court voids or reverses the fraudulent transfer, returning the asset to the debtor’s ownership where it becomes subject to the ordinary collection process.

Avoidance is limited to the amount of the creditor’s claim. A creditor owed $200,000 cannot void a $500,000 transfer in its entirety. The court will unwind only enough of the transfer to satisfy the outstanding judgment. If the transferred asset is indivisible—such as a piece of real property—the court may order a sale and distribute proceeds up to the creditor’s claim amount.

The avoidance remedy is available to creditors who have not yet obtained a judgment. A creditor with an unliquidated claim can seek avoidance, though courts may require the creditor to first reduce the claim to judgment before executing on the recovered asset.

Attachment and Provisional Remedies

Section 726.108(1)(b) authorizes attachment or other provisional remedies against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee. Attachment allows a creditor to seize the transferred asset or freeze the transferee’s property before a final judgment on the fraudulent transfer claim is entered.

A creditor seeking attachment must typically demonstrate the same criteria required for any provisional remedy under Florida law: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if the asset is dissipated before trial, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy. Courts evaluate these factors in light of the strength of the fraudulent transfer evidence, including the presence of badges of fraud such as transfers to insiders or concealment.

Attachment is particularly valuable when the transferee may sell or further transfer the asset before the fraudulent transfer case is resolved. A court order freezing the asset in place prevents the transferee from defeating the creditor’s remedy through a second transfer.

Injunctive Relief

Section 726.108(1)(c)(1) permits a court to enjoin further disposition of the transferred asset by the debtor, the transferee, or both. An injunction prevents the parties from selling, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of the property while the fraudulent transfer action is pending.

The injunction can extend beyond the specific asset transferred. The statute authorizes an injunction against further disposition of “other property” of the debtor or transferee. A court may restrain a debtor from making additional transfers of any non-exempt property if the evidence suggests an ongoing pattern of asset concealment.

Injunctions are available to both pre-judgment and post-judgment creditors. A creditor who has not yet obtained a money judgment can seek an injunction to preserve assets while the underlying claim is litigated.

Appointment of a Receiver

Section 726.108(1)(c)(2) authorizes the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the transferred asset or other property of the transferee. A receiver is a neutral third party appointed by the court to manage, preserve, and account for the property until the fraudulent transfer dispute is resolved.

Receivership is an extraordinary remedy that courts reserve for situations where less restrictive measures are inadequate. A court may appoint a receiver when the debtor or transferee has demonstrated a pattern of asset dissipation, when the transferred property requires active management, or when the parties cannot be trusted to preserve the asset pending resolution of the case.

The receiver’s authority is defined by the court order. A receiver may be authorized to collect rents, manage a business, liquidate inventory, or take other actions necessary to preserve the value of the transferred property.

Levy of Execution

Section 726.108(2) provides a remedy specifically for judgment creditors. If a creditor has already obtained a judgment on the underlying claim, the court may authorize the creditor to levy execution on the transferred asset or its proceeds. Levy of execution means the sheriff physically seizes the property or garnishes funds for sale to satisfy the judgment.

This remedy is only available after the creditor has a final judgment. Pre-judgment creditors must rely on the provisional remedies described above—attachment, injunction, or receivership—to preserve assets while the case proceeds.

The Catch-All Provision

Section 726.108(1)(c)(3) authorizes “any other relief the circumstances may require.” Florida appellate courts have debated whether this catch-all provision permits a court to award money damages against the transferor or transferee, as opposed to limiting relief to the recovery or preservation of specific assets.

Two Florida appellate decisions have held that the catch-all provision is broad enough to include money judgments against a transferor. The Fourth District Court of Appeal and the First District Court of Appeal both concluded that damages may be available against the transferor and transferee jointly and severally when the circumstances warrant monetary relief.

The practical significance is substantial. If the transferred asset has been sold, consumed, or dissipated by the transferee, the creditor cannot recover the specific property. A money judgment against the transferee for the value of the property received fills this gap. Without the catch-all provision, a creditor whose debtor transferred cash that the transferee then spent would have no effective remedy under the avoidance provisions alone.

Money Judgments Against Transferees

Section 726.109(2) complements the catch-all provision by authorizing a money judgment against the first transferee or any subsequent transferee who did not take in good faith and for value. The judgment is for the lesser of the value of the asset transferred or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim.

The value of the asset is measured at the time of transfer, subject to equitable adjustment. If the transferee improved the property or the property declined in value after the transfer, the court may adjust the judgment amount as equity requires. A good-faith transferee who gave reasonably equivalent value is protected from a money judgment entirely.

Subsequent transferees face liability unless they qualify for the good-faith-for-value defense. A person who acquires property from the initial transferee without knowledge of the fraudulent transfer and for fair value is protected. A person who receives the property as a gift or who knows the original transfer was fraudulent is exposed to a judgment for the value received.

Proceedings Supplementary vs. Chapter 726

Creditors can pursue fraudulent transfer remedies through two distinct procedural mechanisms. Chapter 726 provides a standalone cause of action with a four-year statute of limitations from the date of transfer and the full range of remedies described above.

Proceedings supplementary under section 56.29 provide a streamlined procedural path within the existing judgment enforcement case.

The remedies available under proceedings supplementary are more limited than those under the standalone fraudulent transfer statute. The proceedings supplementary provision permits the court to void a fraudulent transfer and order the sheriff to seize the property, but courts have held that this procedural path does not independently support a money judgment against the transferee for the value of property no longer in the transferee’s hands. The creditor must be able to identify specific personal property still held by the transferee.

A critical unresolved question is whether the four-year limitations period for fraudulent transfer claims applies when those claims are brought through proceedings supplementary. Florida appellate courts have reached conflicting conclusions. One district court of appeal held that the remedy under proceedings supplementary extends for the twenty-year life of the judgment. Another held that the four-year limitations period applies regardless of the procedural vehicle.

The Eleventh Circuit certified this question to the Florida Supreme Court in late 2025, asking the court to resolve the conflict and clarify whether proceedings supplementary remain a broad enforcement mechanism or are subject to the same limitations period as standalone Chapter 726 actions. The outcome will significantly affect how judgment creditors pursue fraudulent transfer claims in Florida.

Limits on Creditor Remedies

Fraudulent transfer remedies are equitable, not punitive. The creditor’s recovery cannot exceed the amount of the creditor’s actual claim against the debtor. A successful fraudulent transfer action does not increase the debtor’s liability—it restores the creditor’s ability to collect on the existing judgment.

The good-faith transferee defense under section 726.109(1) limits the creditor’s ability to recover from third parties who acted without knowledge of the fraud and gave reasonably equivalent value. Even a transferee who cannot fully invoke this defense retains a lien on the transferred property to the extent of the value actually given to the debtor.

Florida courts have also held that fraudulent transfer remedies do not include independent causes of action against professionals who assisted with the transfer. Attorneys, accountants, and financial advisors who provided advice but did not receive or hold the transferred property are not transferees and cannot be sued under Chapter 726.