Prejudgment Attachment: When Courts Allow Asset Seizure before Judgment

The primary purpose of prejudgment attachment is to maintain the status quo. It acts as a legal freeze on specific assets to ensure that if a plaintiff eventually wins a judgment, there will actually be something left to collect. It is not intended to be a punishment or a premature victory: it is a security measure designed to prevent the frustration of a future court order.

There is a fundamental difference between these two stages of civil procedure. Post-judgment enforcement happens after a judge or jury has confirmed liability. At that stage, the plaintiff is a judgment creditor and has a broad right to seize assets. In contrast, prejudgment attachment occurs while the case is still being litigated and the defendant is still presumed not liable. Because of this, the legal standards for a prejudgment order are significantly higher and the procedural hurdles are much more complex.

The most common ground for seeking this remedy is the credible threat of asset dissipation. If a plaintiff can show that a defendant is actively transferring funds to offshore accounts, selling off real estate under market value, or closing down business operations to avoid a pending debt, the court may intervene. The risk must be real and imminent: vague suspicions are never enough.

Prejudgment attachment is a creature of statute. This means the court can only grant it if the specific laws of the jurisdiction allow for it. Most states limit these remedies to specific types of cases, such as those involving a clear breach of contract, cases where the defendant is a non resident, or instances involving fraud. If your claim does not fit into these statutory buckets, the court lacks the power to issue the order.

The plaintiff must prove a likelihood of success. This involves presenting a forensic audit of the evidence at the very beginning of the case. The judge must be convinced that the plaintiff will probably win the underlying lawsuit. If the case is a "he said, she said" dispute with no clear documentation, a court is highly unlikely to freeze the defendant assets.

The plaintiff must show that without the attachment, they will suffer irreparable harm: meaning that a later money judgment would be effectively useless. Furthermore, the law requires a bond requirement. To protect the defendant, the plaintiff must often post a significant amount of money with the court. If the court later finds that the attachment was wrongful, this bond is used to compensate the defendant for their losses.

Under the principle of due process, a defendant generally must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their property is taken. In extreme cases, a court might issue a temporary order without notice (ex parte), but it must be followed immediately by a full hearing. If the plaintiff fails to meet the strict notice requirements, the defendant can move to vacate the order immediately.

A defendant can file a motion to dissolve the prejudgment attachment by showing that the plaintiff did not meet the legal standards. They might argue that the assets are exempt from seizure, that the plaintiff case is weak, or that the plaintiff posted an inadequate bond. Alternatively, a defendant can ask the court to modify the order to release specific funds needed for daily living expenses or essential business operations.

Liquid assets are the most frequent targets. An attachment order can be served on a bank, which then freezes the defendant accounts up to the amount specified. Similarly, business receivables can be attached, meaning the defendant customers are ordered to pay the court or an escrow account instead of the defendant.

Tangible assets like real estate, vehicles, and business inventory can also be attached. For real estate, this usually involves recording a lien against the property title. For movable property, a sheriff might physically seize the items or place them under a protective seal.

• Bank Accounts: Immediate freeze of funds.
• Real Estate: Filing a lien to prevent sale.
• Vehicles: Physical seizure or disabling.
• Business Inventory: Restricting sale or transfer.

A defendant who suffers from a wrongful attachment can sue the plaintiff for damages. This includes lost profits from an interrupted business, interest on frozen funds, and the cost of the legal fees incurred to fight the attachment. In some cases, if the plaintiff acted with malice, they might even face punitive damages.

This is where the bond requirement becomes critical. The defendant can seek recovery directly from the bond the plaintiff posted at the beginning of the case. This ensures that the defendant has a guaranteed source of compensation for the disruption of their property rights. The risk of losing the bond makes prejudgment attachment a move that requires careful calculation of the probability of success.

A plaintiff must move fast to catch a defendant before they hide assets, but moving too fast without a forensic audit of the facts can lead to a wrongful attachment. SJKP LLP provides the analytical stewardship needed to balance these competing pressures, ensuring that the application is built on a foundation of procedural accuracy.

The attachment is not a standalone case: it is a part of the larger litigation. Every fact presented in the attachment hearing must be consistent with the long term strategy of the lawsuit. We ensure that the provisional remedy serves the ultimate goal of capital recovery without creating unnecessary vulnerabilities in the main case.