Eleventh Circuit Asks Florida Supreme Court to Clarify the Power of Proceedings Supplementary

Florida judgment creditors may soon receive long-awaited clarity on one of the most important and most misunderstood tools for post-judgment enforcement: proceedings supplementary under section 56.29, Florida Statutes.

In October 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified a series of questions to the Florida Supreme Court in Saadi v. Maroun, 157 F.4th 1353 (11th Cir. 2025), asking the Court to resolve deep conflicts in Florida appellate case law concerning fraudulent transfers, statutes of limitation, and the scope of relief available in proceedings supplementary. The answers will have significant consequences for creditors attempting to collect judgments in Florida, particularly where debtors have moved assets into affiliated entities or insider hands.

Background: a familiar enforcement problem

The case arises from a common fact pattern. A judgment creditor obtains a valid money judgment. Years pass without payment. Eventually, the creditor discovers that the judgment debtor transferred substantial funds to an entity the debtor owns or controls, and that those funds were later used to acquire assets—such as real property—while the judgment remains unpaid.

Florida law has long recognized that proceedings supplementary exist to address exactly this problem. Section 56.29 is designed to allow courts to “ferret out” assets that have been concealed, transferred, or placed beyond the reach of execution, and to subject those assets to satisfaction of the judgment. Historically, Florida courts construed this statute broadly and equitably, consistent with its remedial purpose.

The modern confusion: McGregor versus Rosenberg

That understanding was disrupted by the Fourth District’s decision in McGregor v. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., 332 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). McGregor took a narrow view of section 56.29, holding—among other things—that:

• Monetary judgments against transferees are generally unavailable under section 56.29(3);

• Fraudulent transfer claims in proceedings supplementary are subject to the strict limitation periods of Chapter 726 (Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act);

• Section 56.29(3) is limited to tangible, identifiable personal property capable of immediate seizure by a sheriff.

Under McGregor’s approach, many traditional proceedings supplementary claims would be effectively extinguished, even where the debtor’s conduct was plainly fraudulent and the judgment remains unsatisfied.

Two years later, the Third District reached the opposite conclusion in Rosenberg v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 360 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Rosenberg rejected McGregor’s cramped interpretation and reaffirmed the long-standing principle that proceedings supplementary are equitable, flexible, and designed to prevent judgment debtors from benefitting from fraudulent transfers regardless of form.

These decisions left trial courts and federal courts applying Florida law in an untenable position, forced to choose between irreconcilable appellate authorities.

The certified questions

Recognizing the importance of the conflict, the Eleventh Circuit certified multiple questions to the Florida Supreme Court, which were further divided by the Appellant including:

• Whether a judgment creditor may obtain a money judgment against a transferee under section 56.29(3);

• Whether fraudulently transferred funds must remain identifiable to be recoverable;

• Whether relief under section 56.29(3) is limited to personal property, or may extend to other assets acquired with transferred funds;

• Whether the 2014 amendments to section 56.29 retroactively imposed Chapter 726 limitation periods on proceedings supplementary claims;

• Whether tolling under section 95.051 applies to fraudulent transfer claims, including concealment of the debtor’s whereabouts or identity.

At bottom, the Florida Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether proceedings supplementary remain a powerful, judgment-focused enforcement mechanism or whether they have been reduced to a narrow, technical remedy that sophisticated debtors can easily evade.

Why this matters to creditors and businesses

For judgment creditors, the stakes could not be higher. If McGregor’s interpretation prevails, debtors who successfully hide assets for a few years may permanently defeat collection, even where the judgment itself remains valid for decades. That outcome would reward concealment and penalize persistence.

If Rosenberg’s reasoning is adopted, Florida law will reaffirm a principle essential to the integrity of civil judgments: a debtor cannot avoid payment by shuffling assets through insiders, entities, or delay tactics, and courts retain broad authority to unwind fraudulent schemes in aid of execution.

From a practical standpoint, the decision will affect:

• How long creditors have to pursue fraudulently transferred assets;

• Whether affiliated LLCs and transferees can face direct money judgments;

• Whether real property acquired with transferred funds can be reached;

• How aggressively courts can act when debtors obstruct discovery or disappear.

Looking ahead

The Florida Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will likely reshape post-judgment enforcement practice statewide. Until then, proceedings supplementary remain an evolving and heavily litigated area of Florida law.

At VAdam Law, we routinely represent judgment creditors in complex enforcement actions involving fraudulent transfers, insider entities, and concealed assets. We are closely monitoring this case and advising clients on strategies that preserve enforcement rights while the law develops.

If you hold an unpaid judgment or are facing enforcement proceedings involving affiliated entities or asset transfers, experienced counsel matters—especially in a legal landscape that is actively being defined.  VAdam Law is available to assist. Consultations may be scheduled through our online scheduling portal or by calling (954) 451-0792.