Jonathan Alper's Recent Articles from LexMonitor

Set Off Provisions In Bank Agreement Does Not Override IRA Protection

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:48:52 GMT

A caller was concerned that his IRA funds held as his bank’s brokerage department are not protected against an outstanding judgment because of a “set off” provision of the bank’s depositor agreement. The agreement states that “to the extent permitted by applicable law” the lender has a right to set off all of the borrower’s accounts. Set off pertains to debts owed to the bank where the deposits are held. Set off does not mean that the bank can remove exemptions against debts owed to other creditors. The set off provision of this agreement means that the bank can take money from the caller’s accounts to pay a debt owed to this same bank, but it does not state that the bank can take the depositors money to pay someone else. .

The IRA money would be protected against a set-off to the same bank because the set off provision is limited by applicable laws. Because applicable law, Florida law, protects IRA money from creditors the set off provision does not apply to the caller’s IRA funds, and the bank could not take the IRA to pay debts the caller would owe to the same bank.

Writ Of Garnishment In Florida: How To Beat The Creditor

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:36:28 GMT

Many people are motivated to contact be because a creditor served a Florida writ of garnishment on their employer or bank account. One of their first questions is : “what should I do about the garnishment?” I am going to take this opportunity to provide a short, general answer to all such inquiries, past and future.

There are three categories of responses to a writ of garnishment in Florida. The first option is to assert an exemption of the assets garnished. There are exemptions, for example, available to wages of head of household or some jointly owned bank accounts. The garnishment notice should include a claim of exemption form. Claim your exemption on the form, file it with the court, and send a copy to the creditor or their attorney. You are supposed to get an expedited hearing on the exemption claim, but practically, you will have to be proactive in getting a hearing date.

Second, after you file the exemption form, call the creditor or attorney and discuss your exemption. Most creditor attorneys will voluntarily dissolve a garnishment if you show them proof of a valid exemption.

The third option, if your asset is not exempt, is to fight the garnishment on procedural grounds. The Florida writ of garnishment laws include many detailed procedural requirements with very strict time requirements. Even the most experienced creditor attorneys often violate one of the technical requirements of a writ of garnishment. If you find and assert a procedural violation you can get a court to dissolve the writ of garnishment.

A big issue for people is whether they must, or should, hire an attorney to help them fight the garnishment. The answer depends on a number of factors including the amount of money being garnished and whether your defense is a clear exemption or a legal procedural technicality. My guess is that an experienced attorney will charge no less than $500 to assert a garnishment exemption, and the fees will increase for procedural defects or protracted negotiations with your creditor.

Mortgage Lender Allows Large Principal Reduction To Avoid Foreclosure

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:37:18 GMT

In another example of bank’s becoming cooperative in mortgage modifications for primary residences, an attorney colleague told me this week that one of his clients was offered a substantial principal reduction as part of a deal keep the client in his home. The bank foreclosed, and the attorney defended the mortgage foreclosure on behalf of the client. The client’s home was over $100,000 under water. The case went through state court mediation. The client was seeking an interest and payment reduction.

The mortgage company representative said it was his company’s new policy to keep people in their homes and avoid foreclosure. The bank offered to mark the mortgage balance down to fair market value through a permanent mortgage balance reduction. The bank wrote off over $100,000 of mortgage debt as part of the homeowner’s payment reduction. The homeowners have no personal liability to repay the amount of mortgage deduction.

This windfall for the homeowner may be an anomaly, and it also could be due to the attorney’s negotiation skill (the particular attorney is skilled in all types of legal negotiations). I find that the story is consistent with what I see as a gradual change in mortgage lender policy. Mortgage companies are becoming flexible to make reasonable concessions required to keep good customers in their primary residences.

Tenants By Entireties Protection Outside Florida

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:08:29 GMT

Tenants by entireties property in Florida is exempt from individual debts of either spouse. It makes no difference if the debtor is a Florida resident or an out-of-state resident with property located in Florida. From time to time I advise Florida clients who own real property or other assets in other states, and they want to know if the out-of-state property is protected as entireties property.

As far as I can tell the following states exempt tenants by entireties assets: Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, and D.C.

Florida law presumes that all assets owned by husband and wife with rights of survivorship (joint tenants with rights of survivorship) are intended to be owned as T by E. Therefore, the T by E designation need not appear on the face of the title (e.g, the deed or bank account) in order to be protected entireties properties.

I do not know which, if any, of the other entireties states make the same presumption in favor of entireties ownership. If you and your spouse jointly own property in a state other than Florida you should find out if that state requires the property to be specifically designated as tenants by entireties property in order to be protected from your creditors.

Asset Protection Limitation Against SEC Judgment

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:38:49 GMT

A new client this week wanted help to deal tieh a money judgment against him in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The client’s main assets were a Florida homestead and a company pension. He is a salaried employee and supports his spouse and children.

I have explained in other blog posts that asset protection is designed to protect against civil judgments, but that some federal agencies have collection tools that are more powerful that those available to private creditors. In the case of the SEC, the law makes a distinction between SEC actions for disgorgement and other debts for things such as fines. Disgorgement is a remedy to recover money that the debtor acquired from victims in the course of securities law violations. Disgorgement is designed ro recover unjustly acquired money and to set an example for other potential wrongdoers.

SEC judgments other than disgorgement are treated as ordinary debts. The debtor may exempt from recovery by the SEC of assets which the debtor may exempt under applicable state laws. Disgorgement is an equitable remedy, and the SEC has available extraordinary remedies to seize the debtor’s property to enforce disgorgement orders. A court could hold a debtor in contempt for failure to turn over assets to comply with a disgorgement judgment.

I do not believe the SEC could force the sale of a debtor’s Florida homestead, but the SEC could probably place a lien on the property to recover money when the property is sold or refinanced. Employee pensions and most other retirement is exempt from disgorgement. Other assets are vulnerable. For instance, the SEC can hold debtor’s in contempt for refusal to turn over money held in offshore accounts or offshore entities.

Bankruptcy does not stay SEC collections. Disgorgement judgments are not dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Although my client’s salary may be exempt from civil collection under Florida’s wage exemption statutes, federal law permits federal government creditors to garnish up to 15% of a debtor’s salary notwithstanding state exemption from garnishment.

Do not expect asset protection to protect you from debts owed the SEC, FTC, the IRS, and many other federal agencies.

Tenants By Entireties Does Not Require Florida Residency

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:52:39 GMT

A reader asks an interesting question about tenants by entireties protection: does tenants by entireties protection apply to marketable securities held in a Florida brokerage account where one of the spouses is a permanent Florida resident and the other spouse resides outside Florida?

Tenants by entireties is a type of property ownership between married couples. The elements of entireties ownership have been established by traditions of Florida’s court decisions and traditions of English common law. Florida property law holds that assets owned by then entireties cannot be sold or divided to satisfy the debts of one of the married owners.

Tenants by entireties property is not technically an “exemption” similar to exemptions from creditors established by Florida statutes or the Florida Constitution. Florida’s asset protection exemptions require that the debtor be a Florida resident. Entireties protection, not being an exemption per se, does not require that the debtor be a Florida resident. Entireties assets are protected from the creditors of one spouse so long as the asset is located in Florida so that is covered by Florida’s property laws.

My answer to the reader’s question is that the Florida securities account would be protected from the creditors of either spouse regardless of whether one, both, or neither of the couple resides in Florida. However, if there is a judgement against the non-Floridian spouse, and the financial institution has an office in the state where the debtor spouse resides, I believe the creditor could garnish the account in the debtor’s home state.

Homestead Not Abandoned By Surrender To Lender In Bankruptcy

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:48:56 GMT

Your homestead property is exempt as long as you intend to maintain the property as your permanent residence. When a homestead owner files bankruptcy he must declare his future intention regarding his homestead property and mortgage. The debtor must declare if he intends to reaffirm the mortgage and stay in the house or surrender the property to the mortgage lender and discharge personal liability on th mortgage note. If a debtor states on his bankruptcy petition that he intends to surrender his homestead, does that signify that he intends to abandon the property and preclude him from the homestead exemption?

In a recently decided bankruptcy case a debtor’s statement of intentions indicated he wanted to surrender his homestead to the mortgage company. However, the debtor also intended to live in his house until the mortgage lender completed the foreclosure. The trustee objected to the debtor’s plan to continued occupancy during the bankruptcy, and the trustee argued that when the debtor’s stated intention to surrender the property amounted to an abandonment of his homestead protection.

The court disagreed with the trustee. The court held that given Florida’s liberal interpretation of homestead protection the debtor’s intention to surrender the house to foreclosure does not constitute an abandonment of his homestead protection. Abandonment of homestead requires that the homeowner voluntarily out of his house into a new residence and show the intention not to return to the homestead property. Case No. 8:11-03796

Article Indicates Mortgage Lenders Decided To Encourage Short Sales

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:42:35 GMT

Are mortgage lenders finally “getting it?” Since the beginning of the housing crash so many homeowners have expressed to me their frustration trying to work with their mortgage company to arrange a reasonable short sale of their real estate. These homeowners could not comprehend why the mortgage lender believed it was in their interest to foreclose on a property and then own the real estate instead of working through a short sale to dispose of the property to a ready and willing buyer.

Bloomberg online published an article indicating many banks have concluded that moving property off their books through cooperative short sales is a better solution than foreclosure. The article states:

Lenders have routinely delayed or blocked such transactions, known as short sales, in which they accept less from a buyer than the seller’s outstanding loan. Now banks have decided the deals are faster and less costly than foreclosures, which have slowed in response to regulatory probes of abusive practices

]

Bloomberg’s article says that banks are even offering troubled homeowners cash bonuses up to $35,000 to find a short sale purchaser for their upside down property.

If true, this is welcomed news for many troubled homeowners. If your mortgage lender previously discouraged a short sale you may want to contact the mortgage service company to see if their policy has changed. My question is, what took them so long?

Pay-On-Death Account Money Protected From Creditors After Your Death

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:28:28 GMT

If other attorneys call me with questions I conclude that many laymen have the same question. A California attorney called today to inquire about his mother’s situation in Florida. His mother owns an upside down condo in Florida. She is elderly and ill. The mother’s biggest asset is a bank account which she titled in her name with a pay-on-death designation naming the attorney-son as death beneficiary. The son asked me if in the event the mother’s children do not continue paying the condo mortgage after her death could the mortgage lender take the money currently held in the mother’s bank account.

It is highly unlikely that the mortgage lender would pursue a deficiency judgment against the mother after he death, but if it did I do not think they could recapture the money in the mother’s account. After you die your heirs, or your creditors, can open a probate estate to make sure your debts paid from your non-exempt assets which make up your probate estates. Assets that pass “by contract” or “by title” to your heirs are not part of your probate estate because their title transfer is automatic upon death. The most common example is property owned jointly with rights of survivorship. Immediately upon death, the survivorship element of ownership kicks in and the asset transfers to the surviving joint tenant outside of any probate.

A pay-on-death bank account transfers automatically upon your death just as a jointly owned asset. The titling of the account with a pay-on-death designation ensures that the death beneficiary immediately gains title upon the owner’s death. Your estate and personal representative have no ownership interest in the account because your rights expire upon your death. Therefore, to answer the attorney’s question, neither the mortgage company nor any other creditor could take money the son acquires in the mother’s account to pay the mother’s debts after her death.

Bankruptcy Court Says No Claims Permitted For Conspiracy or Aiding And Abetting Fraudulent Transfers

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:26:37 GMT

A recent bankruptcy court decision addressed the issue of whether people who assist a debtor’s pre-bankruptcy fraudulent transfers can be held liable for damages in the bankruptcy proceeding. In this case, a trustee hired to liquidate debtor property filed a complaint pursuant to Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code against a group of people for conspiring with the debtor to make fraudulent transfers.

The Court said that the bankruptcy Code provides for avoidance of fraudulent transfers, but it does not permit the trustee to pursue non-avoidance actions such as claims based upon civil conspiracy or aiding and abetting under applicable state law.

The court held that the same claims cannot be asserted under Florida law either because Florida law does not permit claims for either civil conspiracy to make a fraudulent transfer or for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer. Only the transferee shares liability with the debtor under federal bankruptcy law or Florida law. The court cited several Florida appellate decisions, including a Supreme Court case, which had dismissed claims by creditors against non-transferees for assisting a debtor’s fraudulent conveyance.

Florida attorneys, accountants, and other professionals generally need not fear advising clients about transfers that might later be deemed to defraud the client’s creditors. Be careful, however, not to become an agent of the transfer by, for instance, taking title to the debtor’s property or moving the debtor’s cash through your own trust accounts. In re: Ernie Haireford, Inc. Case No. 10-AP-512

Homestead Protection For Mobile Home/RV Park

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:08:49 GMT

One of my clients is concerned about a judgment from default on a second mortgage on his current residence. The client’s primary investment asset is a mobile home and RV park. The part comprises a large number of lots which are rented to different mobile home and RV owners. The RV park is located in the county and is smaller than 160 acres.

The client asked if he could exempt the entire RV park as homestead if he moves his residence to his own mobile home located within his park. The issue is whether a large property used primarily for commercial purposes can be exempted entirely when the debtor resides upon the property.

There is a well established general rule that a homeowner living within a city may not claim homestead for a property used in part to generate income. For instance, a person within a city may not homestead a multi-unit residential building when the homeowner rents one or more of the units. Outside of a city a homeowner may generate income on his homestead; the large, 160 homestead protection is designed to protect the family farmer.

The law is not yet clear when a property outside a city is used primarily as a commercial venture such as the case of my client’s RV park. One state court appeals court held that a homeowner could claim homestead where he used part of his property to operate a mobile home park. A federal bankruptcy court subsequently refused to follow the state case and denied homestead protection to a debtor whose property consisted of his own home and eight mobile home lots rented to third parties.

In my opinion, most courts would not protect my clients property if the court believed my client relocated his residence to a small portion of a property previously used wholly as a commercial enterprise just so he could protect the entire property under the homestead umbrella.

IRA Assets Not-Exempt When IRA Is The Judgment Debtor

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:21:01 GMT

A client maintains a self-directed IRA which has purchased rental real estate. The real estate is titled in the name of the IRA. The IRA owns several properties as well as financial assets. A tenant filed a lawsuit. The client asked me to reaffirm his understanding that if he lost the lawsuit the tenant/plaintiff could not satisfy the judgment against the other real estate and financial assets because IRAs are exempt from creditors under Florida law.

All IRA holdings are at risk from a tenant suit. There is an important difference between IRA assets- assets owned by the IRS- and a debtor’s beneficial interest in his IRA and the proceeds the debtor receives from his IRA. A Florida debtor’s IRA interest as his IRA beneficiary is exempt from judgment creditors. That protection does not extend to the IRA itself. If the IRA is sued a creditor should be able to levy upon whatever the IRA owns.

This question illustrates one of the risk associated with self-directed IRAs which invest in non-traditional assets other than marketable securities.

Temporary Restraining Order Freeze Against Persons Assisting Suspected Fraudulent Transfer

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:31:34 GMT

A creditor cannot levy upon or freeze your assets until the creditor obtains a civil judgment against you. The creditor cannot go after your assets just because he has filed a lawsuit and you are defending the suit. That is the general rule. However, as pointed out in an article in Forbes Magazine online, written by attorney Jay Adkisson, some courts will permit creditors to freeze assets to stop potential fraudulent transfers.

In this case, a creditor had already obtained a large civil judgment. The creditor alleged that the debtor was engaged in fraudulently transferring assets to avoid collection through companies controlled by the debtor’s family member. The court issued a temporary restraining order to freeze the assets of the entities allegedly assisting the fraudulent transfers.

The case illustrates that courts will act probatively to stop possible fraudulent transfers pending the outcome of fraudulent transfer lawsuits. Faulkner v. Kornman, 2011 WL 3503098

Nevada Trusts, Delaware Trusts, and Other Domestic Trust Will Likely Not Protect You In Florida Court

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:57:39 GMT

I get calls from people who have established their own asset protection plan using self-settled trusts in states such as Nevada, Delaware, and Alaska. These states have enacted statutes which protect from creditors a debtor’s beneficial interest in a trust which the debtor sets up for his own benefit- a “self settled trust.” A self-settled trust protected by state law is referred to as a domestic asset protection trust (“DAPT”) Florida does not have a DAPT law, and generally speaking a self-settled trust in Florida does not protect the debtor’s beneficial interest even when the trust has standard spendthrift clauses.

I have written before, but it needs repeating, that general conflict of interest law principals hold that Florida courts will not recognize or enforce the DAPT statutes enacted in other states. A Florida debtor who transfers his assets to a Nevada trust or a Delaware trust will probably find that the Florida courts will permit his creditors to levy upon his interest in this trust. Bankruptcy courts are more likely than state courts to penetrate a DAPT.

Florida Head Of Household Fortunate To Avoid Garnishment Of Wages From Washington Employer

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:08:39 GMT

A man called me seeking help with a wage garnishment instituted by a former business partner who had obtained a Florida money judgment related to their prior business relationship. The man lived and worked in Florida. He supported his non-working spouse and minor children. He was employed by a company based in Washington state. The company had an office in Florida. The employer issued paychecks from the Washington office.

The creditor domesticated the judgment in Washington, and he obtained a writ of wage garnishment which he served on the employer’s home office in Washington. The employer initially garnished the debtor’s pay check, but the debtor was able to convince a Washington state judge to dissolve the garnishment writ because the debtor’s wages were exempt under Florida law.

The creditor persevered and served a series of additional wage garnishments upon the employer, and in each instance the debtor got the employer to ignore the garnishment or a court to dissolve the writ. . The debtor asked me what he could do to stop what he believed was collection by harassment.

There are several legal decisions in various states which hold that debtors cannot export Florida exemptions to foreign states. I do not know if there is a consistent ruling in the state of Washington, but if Washington state law is consistent with other states then the local court should not be required to recognize Florida’s head of household exemption. If the employer paid the debtor from its Florida branch office the debtor probably could assert the head of household exemption in a Florida court.

As a practical matter, if the Washington judge has dissolved more than one attempted wage garnishment based upon the Florida statute exemption, and the creditor continues to serve garnishment writs upon the employer in Washington, the debtor should consider filing a separate lawsuit for wrongful garnishment in Washington.

This debtor may be fortunate that both his creditor and a foreign state judge does not understand that Florida’s exemptions are not enforceable outside of Florida. In general, a Florida debtor does not necessarily lose Florida residency when he takes a job in another state, but he may expose his wages to garnishment were he works.

Head Of Household Wages Can Be Garnished By Federal Government

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:05:54 GMT

I have had two different clients during this past month who were anticipating civil suits by two separate U.S. government agencies for their alleged violation of agency regulations. Both clients were W-2 employees and both clients supported people in their respective families. Both clients were “head of household” for purposes of Florida’s wage garnishment statutes. Both clients expected that would be exempt from wage garnishment under Florida law.

There is a federal statute which overrides Florida’s wage garnishment statute when the creditor is a U.S. government. The statute says that notwithstanding any provision of a State law, when an individual owes money other than taxes to an executive, judicial or legislative agency that agency may garnish up to 15% of that debtor’s wages. There is an exception when the debtor has been unemployed during the previous year. The statute is Title 31, Subchapter 2, Section 3720D.

In addition, a person who violates U.S. agency regulations is often subject to criminal liability as well as civil money damages. The government has available even stronger measures to collect criminal restitution and fines.

The thing to remember is that asset protection planning is designed mostly to protect people from civil liability to other individuals or private companies. Some asset protections measures may not work when money is owed to the government.

Can Married Couple Claim And Protect Two Separate Homestead Properties?

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:14:06 GMT

Some of my out of state clients want claim Florida residency to protect assets, but they really do not want to move to Florida. Some married debtors ask whether they can invest in a Florida property and claim the property as their homestead while their non-debtor spouse remain in their family home in another state. Can a debtor and his non-debtor spouse have separate homesteads?

The general answer is “yes”; married couples can have separate homesteads, but this is the exception, and it is not as easy as most people imagine. The debtor and his spouse have to be legitimately separated and living apart in different primary residences. The married couple does not have to be legally separated under state family law rules, but their physical separation has to be bona fide and not arranged to defraud creditors. Florida courts have stated that a husband and wife of an “intact marriage” cannot maintain separate legal residences for homestead purposes.

I have met a few asset protection or bankruptcy clients who actually live separately from their spouse and have done so for many years. In these instances, each spouse was working for an employer in different locations

In most cases, people who tell me they have or want separate homestead properties are still part of an intact family and are not entitled to two homestead exemptions. The answer depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Simply claiming a homestead tax exemption for a particular Florida property and using the same address on a drives license and voter card is insufficient when other facts show that the same property is not the debtor’s true home.

Homestead Protection Can Be Lost If Debtor Leases For Income Part Of Homestead Property

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:21:47 GMT

One of my clients owns a small 1/4 lot within a municipality. There are two separate residential buildings on this small lot. The client and his family live in one building. The client leases the second building to tenant who is not a family member. The client asks me if the entire property is exempt homestead.

The issue is whether the debtor’s lease and collection of income from the second building converts part of the property to a business property rather than a residential homestead. There have been several cases over many years which have addressed this issue. I understand that under the current law, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, makes a distinction between leasing part of a homestead located inside a city and leasing part of a homestead in the county.

A debtor residing within a municipality forfeits at least part of homestead protection if he leases his land or improvements for income, whereas leasing has no effect on homestead protection of residences up to 160 acres located outside a municipality. The Supreme Court found that the Florida Constitution expresses different scope of homestead protection depending upon the residences location. Specifically, homestead within a municipality is limited in the Constitution to the residence of the owner and the owner’s family; property occupied by non-family members loses homestead protection.

IRS Can Garnish Part Of Social Secruity Check

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:53:46 GMT

Social security payments are exempt from garnishment under federal social security statutes. The IRS has collection remedies significantly more powerful than a creditor’s collection tools under state law. A CPA asked me the intersection of social security exemptions and IRS collections: can the IRS garnish a taxpayer’s social security check.

Section 6334 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6334 (c)) allows Social Security benefits to be taken to collect unpaid Federal taxes. If your monthly benefit is more than $750, the IRS may garnish fifteen percent of your social security monthly benefit for taxes that are at least six months in arrears. The IRS is required to notify you before it begins to garnish , and you can appeal the garnishment for"hardship.”

This rule is common sense. People who owe the government money should pay their government debt before they receive additional government money.

Can Creditor Hold Debtor In Civil Contempt For Failing To Transport And Assemble In Florida The Debtor's Out-Of -State Assets?

jalper@alperlaw.com (Jonathan Alper) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:18:12 GMT

I am frequently asked whether a creditor can get a court to hold a debtor in contempt of court for not paying a civil judgment. This past week one of my clients explained that he had recently moved to Florida but maintained a car, bank accounts, and collectibles in his former residence. He asked me whether his creditors could obtain a Florida court order commanding him to transport the car and collectibles to Florida and move his money to a Florida bank, and if they could, whether he could be held in contempt and put in jail if he did not comply with the court order.

I am not been involved in any case where a court has threatened to hold my client in contempt if he did not move his own assets from another state into Florida where a creditor could more conveniently levy upon the assets. Essentially, a court would be ordering a debtor to collect his own assets to pay his creditor and threatening to put the debtor in jail for non-compliance.

Courts can order the conveyance of property to remedy a fraudulent transfer or conversion, and courts can hold people in contempt for failure to pay alimony and domestic support obligations. However, Article I, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution provides that no person shall be imprisoned for debt, except fraud. I think a debtor could assert a constitutional law defense to possible contempt sanctions with incarceration for the debtor's failure to assemble property for the benefit of his a civil judgment creditor.