MIAMI, FL — August 2026 — Bernhard Law Firm has secured a complete victory for four Florida businesses targeted in a highly complex proceedings-supplementary action arising from more than $29.8 million in underlying jury verdicts and judgments, plus years of accrued interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. What began as a decades-long judgment dispute evolved into an extensive multi-state, multi-forum asset-recovery and fraudulent-transfer battle, involving Florida state court, federal bankruptcy proceedings, federal removal and remand litigation, and related litigation and assets in New York and Georgia. After approximately two years of directly defending the firm’s four clients in the supplemental proceeding, Bernhard Law Firm obtained their dismissal with prejudice, bringing the claims against all four clients to a final end.

The victory followed approximately two years of litigation and proceedings spanning both Florida state and federal court. See Orange County Circuit Civil Case Nos. 2010-CA-015315-O, 2014-CA-003110-O. (Florida Bar disclaimer: results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result, or same or similar results).

[KEEP READING BELOW IMAGE]

A Complex Judgment-Execution Dispute

The case was brought as a proceeding supplementary to execution arising from an underlying judgment action that had been pending for years. The supplemental complaint sought to impose liability on numerous third parties based on allegations of fraudulent transfers and attempted recovery of assets allegedly available to satisfy judgments.

Florida proceedings supplementary are a powerful judgment-enforcement mechanism. Under Florida Statute § 56.29, a judgment creditor may ask the court to identify and reach non-exempt property belonging to a judgment debtor and, in appropriate circumstances, pursue property or property rights allegedly transferred to or held by third parties. Proceedings supplementary can therefore expand a judgment-enforcement dispute beyond the original judgment debtor and place substantial litigation burdens on businesses and individuals who were not parties to the original case.

In this case, the supplemental complaint expressly invoked Florida’s proceedings-supplementary and fraudulent-transfer statutes and named a large number of third-party defendants.

That made the defense particularly important for Bernhard Law Firm‘s four clients, who maintained that they were improperly swept into a longstanding dispute to which they had no substantive connection.

Bernhard Law Firm Challenged the Claims Directly at the Pleading Stage

Bernhard Law Firm filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss on behalf of the four clients, arguing that the complaint failed to plead the basic elements necessary to maintain fraudulent-transfer claims under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

The motion emphasized that the complaint did not identify specific transfers from the judgment debtors to the four clients and did not adequately allege that the clients received identifiable property belonging to the judgment debtors. The motion further argued that the complaint improperly grouped numerous unrelated defendants together and relied on generalized and conclusory allegations rather than allegations identifying what each individual defendant supposedly did.

The defense also challenged the use of generalized “shotgun” allegations and the failure to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements applicable to fraud claims. The motion argued that the plaintiffs were required to identify the conduct of each defendant individually rather than simply attribute the alleged conduct of numerous parties collectively.

The motion ultimately sought dismissal of both the constructive-fraud and actual-fraud counts against the four clients.

Litigation Also Spanned Federal Court

The proceedings took an additional turn when another defendant removed the supplemental proceeding to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Bernhard Law Firm and the parties litigated the propriety of that removal, including whether the federal court was the proper forum for a proceeding supplementary that arose from the longstanding state-court judgment action. The remand litigation addressed, among other things, the timing and procedural defects surrounding removal and the relationship between proceedings supplementary and the underlying state-court judgment action.

The federal litigation ultimately returned the matter to the state-court forum, where the defense continued pursuing dismissal.

The unusual procedural history underscores the complexity of defending third parties in proceedings supplementary: a case that begins as an effort to collect a judgment can evolve into substantial litigation involving fraudulent-transfer claims, discovery, jurisdictional disputes, removal and remand, and potentially years of litigation for parties who were not involved in the underlying judgment.

A Complete Victory for the Four Clients

After approximately two years of litigation, the Court entered its July 13, 2026 order granting Bernhard Law Firm‘s motion to dismiss with prejudice as to all four Bernhard Law Firm clients.

The dismissal brought the proceedings against those four defendants to a final end.

“This case is a good example of why a business or individual targeted in proceedings supplementary should not assume that a judgment creditor’s allegations are sufficient simply because they arise in the context of an existing judgment,” said Andrew J. Bernhard, founder of Bernhard Law Firm. “Proceedings supplementary can be extraordinarily powerful, but they still have legal requirements. A third party targeted in the process is entitled to demand that the judgment creditor actually plead and prove a legally viable claim against that particular defendant.”

Defending Against Proceedings Supplementary

Judgment creditors have powerful tools under Florida law, but proceedings supplementary are not a blank check to pursue anyone who has had a business relationship with a judgment debtor.

Depending on the circumstances, a defense may involve challenging:

• Whether the proceeding is properly before the court;
• Whether the defendant is properly subject to the court’s jurisdiction;
• Whether the judgment creditor has identified property subject to execution;
• Whether the defendant actually received property from a judgment debtor;
• Whether the alleged transfer qualifies as a fraudulent transfer;
• Whether the complaint adequately identifies the specific conduct of each defendant;
• Whether fraud has been pleaded with the required particularity;
• Whether the plaintiff improperly groups unrelated defendants together;
• Whether the claims are barred by applicable defenses or limitations; and
• Whether the judgment creditor is attempting to impose liability on a non-transferee or unrelated third party without a legally sufficient basis.

The Bernhard Law Firm motion in this case specifically argued that the plaintiffs had failed to identify an actual transfer of the judgment debtors’ property to the four clients and had failed to plead the elements of a fraudulent-transfer claim against each client individually.

Bernhard Law Firm Represents Clients in Judgment Enforcement and Proceedings Supplementary Matters

Proceedings supplementary can create significant risks for businesses, individuals, corporate officers, investors, family members, alleged transferees, and other third parties who suddenly find themselves pulled into litigation arising from someone else’s judgment.

Bernhard Law Firm represents clients defending against judgment execution, proceedings supplementary, fraudulent-transfer claims, asset-recovery actions, and related federal and state litigation.

If you or your business has been targeted by a judgment creditor or served with a complaint, motion, subpoena, or other demand in proceedings supplementary, early legal analysis can be critical.

Contact Bernhard Law Firm:

Bernhard Law Firm PLLC
Web: www.bernhardlawfirm.com
Email: abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com
Phone: 786-871-3349