Can an Internet Bank Account Be Garnished in Florida?

A Florida creditor probably cannot garnish an account at an internet-only bank through a Florida court. A Florida court must have authority over the account itself, not only over the bank that holds it. An account held entirely online, at a bank with no Florida branches, is unlikely to be within reach. Reaching the funds ordinarily means domesticating the judgment where the account sits and garnishing there.

That limitation is real but narrow. The debtor still owes the judgment, must disclose the account in post-judgment discovery, and can be ordered to turn over the funds personally. Internet banking creates a procedural obstacle for creditors, not a legal shield for debtors.

Every Internet Bank Is Chartered Somewhere

There is no legal category called “internet bank.” Every bank that offers accounts online is a traditional bank chartered under either federal law or the law of a particular state. The bank has at least one physical office, a registered agent, and a home jurisdiction, even if it deals with every customer online.

Ally Bank is a Utah-chartered bank with its principal office in Sandy, Utah. SoFi Bank is a national bank chartered through the OCC with headquarters in Cottonwood Heights, Utah. Marcus by Goldman Sachs operates through Goldman Sachs Bank USA, a New York-chartered bank. Chime partners with Stride Bank, N.A. (Oklahoma) and The Bancorp Bank, N.A. (South Dakota) for deposit accounts.

A Florida garnishment writ works only where the court has authority over both the bank and the account. Section 655.0201 fixes where a writ must be served on a financial institution. A bank authorized to do business in Florida may name one in-state location or registered agent as its only address for service. Authority over a bank that keeps Florida branches still gives a Florida court nothing over an account the bank holds somewhere else.

An internet-only bank’s physical presence is confined to its home state. Accepting deposits from Florida residents online does not by itself subject a bank to garnishment writs issued by every state where it has customers. A creditor who wants the account ordinarily has to domesticate the judgment in the bank’s home state first.

Where Is the Account Located?

No Florida court has decided where an account is located when the bank exists purely online. A Florida court can reach a bank account only where the account itself sits inside the state, whatever the court’s authority over the debtor. Garnishment is a quasi in rem proceeding, which requires the court to have jurisdiction over the property it is seizing.

Florida has no rule that an account is located everywhere its bank keeps a branch. A federal court in Florida held in 2021 that an account can have more than one situs. The court pointed to deposit slips and account-opening documents as the records that show where a particular account sits. An account opened online has no branch behind it and generates no deposit slips, which leaves the opening documents to do the work.

For an account at an internet-only bank, several situs rules could apply. The account could be treated as located in the bank’s charter state, at the debtor’s domicile on the theory that intangible property follows its owner, or wherever the deposit account agreement places it.

Florida case law has not resolved which rule applies to purely online accounts. A Florida garnishment writ does not reach a bank simply because the bank takes deposits from people who live here.

National Banks and the Split in Florida Courts

A national bank with Florida branches can be garnished in Florida, but only as to the accounts it holds in Florida. No Florida appellate decision permits a creditor to garnish an out-of-state account by serving a local Florida branch. Banks sometimes comply with a writ anyway, because they face potential liability for ignoring a facially valid court order.

A 2022 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consent order found that a national bank had garnished thousands of out-of-state accounts under writs from states whose law restricted the practice. The order carried a $10 million penalty, refunds of the garnishment fees, and a requirement that the bank tell the issuing court when an account sits outside that state. Banks are caught between two liabilities. Freezing an account under a writ from a court that lacks jurisdiction exposes the bank to the account holder; ignoring a facially valid writ exposes it to the creditor.

A Florida court cannot garnish property sitting in another state, however clear its authority over the institution holding it. The Fourth District said so in 2024, deciding Navy Federal Credit Union v. Veros Credit. The garnishee there answered that the accounts were out of state and the creditor disputed it. Section 77.083 required the court to try that question before entering judgment. Ten years before that, the Fifth District applied the same rule to out-of-state bank accounts seized in a Florida forfeiture case, Burns v. State, Department of Legal Affairs.

The federal district courts sitting in Florida have not been as uniform. Some orders treated authority over a bank’s Florida branch as authority over every account the bank holds. A 2021 order in the Middle District rejected that reading and dissolved the writs. No Florida court, state or federal, has fixed a test for locating an account in the first place.

An account that a national bank maintains online, with no branch behind it, is the hardest case for a creditor. No Florida branch holds it. The records that would place the account somewhere point to the bank’s home office and to whatever its account agreement says.

How Deposit Account Agreements Define Situs

Many banks address the location question in their deposit account agreements. The terms and conditions the account holder accepts when opening the account may specify which state’s laws govern it and where it is deemed to be located.

A federal court in Florida has treated account-opening documents as evidence of an account’s location. A Utah bank’s agreement placing all its accounts in Utah gives a debtor something to argue with. No Florida decision holds that a deposit agreement fixes an account’s location against a garnishing creditor, and the creditor may contest the point in the garnishment proceeding.

Not all deposit agreements contain clear situs provisions. Some are silent, which leaves the question to the court. Others use language ambiguous enough to support either side.

What a Florida Creditor Can Do Instead

A Florida creditor who cannot reach an internet bank account through a Florida garnishment writ has several alternative collection tools.

Judgment domestication. The creditor can domesticate the Florida judgment in the state where the internet bank is chartered. The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act allows the creditor to file a certified copy of the judgment with a court there. After notice to the debtor and any applicable waiting period, the domesticated judgment becomes enforceable under local law.

The creditor can then obtain a garnishment writ from the local court and serve it on the bank in its home jurisdiction. This requires retaining local counsel in the bank’s state, paying additional filing fees, and waiting through the domestication timeline.

Post-judgment discovery and turnover orders. The creditor can use post-judgment discovery in the Florida case to compel the debtor to disclose all bank accounts, regardless of location. Florida courts have broad authority to order debtors to answer interrogatories and appear for depositions about their assets.

If the debtor discloses an internet bank account, the court can issue a turnover order directing the debtor to transfer the funds to satisfy the judgment. The turnover order targets the debtor personally and does not require jurisdiction over the bank itself. A debtor who refuses to comply faces contempt sanctions, including potential incarceration.

Federal court registration. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, a creditor holding a federal judgment may file a certified copy in a second federal district, once the judgment is final or the issuing judge permits it sooner for good cause. The registered copy then operates as a judgment of the district where it was filed. The creditor never has to domesticate the judgment in a state court. Cross-state collection is therefore easier for a creditor holding a federal judgment than for one holding a Florida judgment.

Why Internet Banking Is Not Asset Protection

An internet bank account is harder for a Florida creditor to garnish, but the difficulty does not protect the money itself. The funds in the account are not exempt from collection. The debtor still owes the judgment, must disclose the account in post-judgment discovery, and can be ordered to turn over the funds.

Moving money from a Florida bank to an internet bank is not by itself a fraudulent transfer. Florida’s statute reaches a debtor who disposes of or parts with an asset, and a debtor who still owns every dollar in the new account has parted with nothing. But a creditor can move to unwind a transfer to a spouse, a business partner, or an entity the debtor controls. Post-judgment discovery reaches the new account either way.

A small judgment may not be worth the chase. Domesticating the judgment in the bank’s home state can cost more than the account holds. A creditor with a large judgment and the resources to pursue it absorbs that cost and collects anyway.

Protection for money in a bank account comes from statutory exemptions. Head of household earnings keep their exemption for six months after landing in a bank account. Section 222.11(3) sets that window. It applies at any financial institution, as long as the funds stay traceable as earnings. Tenants by entireties accounts protect a married couple against a creditor of one spouse alone. Where the bank sits can decide which state’s law governs that ownership.