A writ of sequestration is a court order that authorizes a law enforcement officer to seize specific property that is the subject of a pending lawsuit, holding it under court supervision until the case is decided. The purpose is practical: keep the disputed asset safe so the winning party actually has something to collect. Without it, a defendant could sell, hide, or damage the property before a judge ever rules. Because the seizure happens before anyone has proven anything at trial, courts treat the remedy as a serious step and the requirements for getting one are strict.
How It Differs From Attachment, Garnishment, and Replevin
Sequestration is one of several prejudgment remedies courts can use to secure property. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 lists arrest, attachment, garnishment, replevin, and sequestration, with federal courts generally applying the law of the state where they sit to decide when each remedy is available.
The key distinction is specificity. A writ of sequestration targets a particular piece of property that is itself at the center of the dispute. If the lawsuit is over a specific piece of construction equipment, sequestration lets the court seize that equipment. A writ of attachment is typically used to grab a debtor’s assets more broadly to satisfy a future money judgment. Garnishment reaches money owed to the debtor by a third party, such as wages or bank deposits. Sequestration is the scalpel; attachment is closer to a net.
What a Party Must Prove To Get One
Courts don’t grant sequestration on request. The party seeking the writ must file a sworn affidavit that establishes two things in enough detail to satisfy the judge. First, the underlying claim must be probably valid, meaning a legitimate ownership interest, a lien, or some other recognized right to the property. Second, there must be a real risk that the other side will undermine a future judgment if the property isn’t seized now.
Under the federal debt collection statute, the government must show reasonable cause to believe the debtor is about to leave the jurisdiction, is hiding or destroying property, is converting assets in a way that would frustrate collection, or is evading legal process.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 3101 – General Requirements State procedures track similar themes. The common thread is urgency: the court needs to believe that waiting for a full trial would leave the plaintiff with a worthless judgment.
Property That Qualifies and What Is Off-Limits
Only identifiable property connected to the lawsuit is eligible. If the fight is over a boat, the writ covers that boat. Sequestration can’t be used to grab the defendant’s car because they also owe money on an unrelated invoice. The property can be movable (vehicles, machinery, furniture) or fixed to real estate, but it has to be the specific thing in dispute.
Under the federal statute, sequestration applies to income from property in which the debtor holds a substantial nonexempt interest.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 3105 – Sequestration That qualifier matters. Federal law gives individual debtors the right to elect exemptions, either under the federal bankruptcy exemption list or under applicable state and local exemption laws. Protected categories commonly include basic household goods, retirement accounts, and benefits like Social Security. Co-owned property can only be reached to the extent allowed by the law of the state where it’s located.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC Chapter 176 – Federal Debt Collection Procedure
The amount sequestered also has a ceiling. It cannot exceed the debt plus likely interest and court costs, minus the value of any other property already securing the debt or held under a separate attachment or garnishment.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 3105 – Sequestration
How the Writ Is Issued and Executed
The process starts with an application and the sworn affidavit. The affidavit must lay out the factual and legal basis for the seizure with enough specificity to satisfy the judge that every statutory requirement has been met.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 3101 – General Requirements Vague allegations won’t do. The applicant must also post an indemnity bond, which protects the other side financially if the seizure turns out to be unjustified.4U.S. Marshals Service. Writ of Sequestration When the United States is the creditor, no bond is required.
The judge reviews the application. In many cases this happens without notifying the other side first, because the whole point is often to prevent someone from moving or destroying the property. If the legal standards are met, the court issues the writ under seal.
Once signed, the writ goes to a law enforcement officer for execution. In federal cases that is typically a U.S. Marshal, though the court can appoint someone else under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(a).4U.S. Marshals Service. Writ of Sequestration The officer locates and takes physical custody of the property, then holds it under court supervision until further order.
Due Process Safeguards
Taking someone’s property before trial raises obvious constitutional concerns, and the Supreme Court has addressed the tension directly. In Fuentes v. Shevin (1972), the Court struck down state replevin statutes that allowed property seizures without any prior notice or hearing, holding that due process generally requires an opportunity to be heard before the government takes a significant property interest.5Justia U.S. Supreme Court. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)
Two years later, in Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co. (1974), the Court upheld Louisiana’s sequestration procedure because it included enough safeguards to compensate for the lack of advance notice: the creditor had to make a detailed showing to a judge, post a bond, and the debtor could immediately seek dissolution of the writ, forcing the creditor to prove its case or face return of the property plus damages and attorney’s fees.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court. Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974)
The practical takeaway: an ex parte seizure is constitutional only when the procedure, taken as a whole, gives the person losing their property a meaningful and prompt way to challenge it. A bond requirement alone isn’t enough. Judicial review of the initial application, a detailed factual showing under oath, and an immediate right to a dissolution hearing are the minimum safeguards courts look for.
Responding to a Seizure
If your property has been seized, you have options. The most direct is a motion to dissolve the writ. You can argue that the affidavit was insufficient, that the property doesn’t qualify for sequestration, or that the bond posted was inadequate. The court holds a hearing, and the burden shifts to the party who obtained the writ to prove the grounds on which it was issued. If they can’t, the court orders the property returned.
A second option is to replevy the property by posting your own counter-bond, called a replevin bond. This guarantees that the property or its cash value will be available to the other side if they win at trial. Posting the bond puts the property back in your hands while the lawsuit plays out. It’s the faster path if you need the asset for daily use or business operations and can afford the bond.
Letting a writ go unchallenged carries real risk. The property stays in government custody for the duration of the lawsuit, which can be months or years. Storage costs and depreciation can erode its value during that time, and the defendant typically bears those losses if they lose the case.
What Happens After Judgment
If the court rules in favor of the party who sought the writ, the sequestered property, or income from it, is applied to satisfy the judgment.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 3105 – Sequestration The winning party finally gets what the court preserved for them.
If the judgment goes the other way, or if the writ is vacated at any point, the court orders the property restored to the person it was taken from.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 3105 – Sequestration The indemnity bond posted at the outset is the primary source of compensation for any losses the defendant suffered during the seizure.
Wrongful Sequestration and Costs
A party who obtains a writ without proper grounds faces real consequences. If the writ is dissolved or the plaintiff loses, the defendant can recover damages from the bond, including the costs of fighting the seizure and, in many jurisdictions, reasonable attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court in Mitchell treated the availability of damages and attorney’s fees for an improperly obtained writ as a core safeguard that makes ex parte sequestration constitutional in the first place.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court. Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974)
Financial exposure can go beyond the bond. Many states treat wrongful sequestration as a basis for a compulsory counterclaim, meaning the defendant must raise it in the existing lawsuit rather than file a separate action. Damages can include loss of use, lost business income, depreciation during the seizure period, and storage costs the defendant was forced to bear. When consumer goods are involved, some jurisdictions impose minimum statutory damages or award the finance charges on the underlying contract as damages, whichever is greater.
Sequestration isn’t cheap for either side. The party seeking the writ faces filing fees, the cost of the indemnity bond (typically a percentage of the property’s value paid to a surety), and law enforcement fees for executing the seizure. The requesting party may also need to advance funds to cover the marshal’s or sheriff’s estimated out-of-pocket expenses for taking and holding the property.4U.S. Marshals Service. Writ of Sequestration For the defendant, a replevin bond means paying a surety; skipping the bond means storage costs that add up quickly for vehicles or heavy equipment. Attorney’s fees land on both sides. Winning on the merits doesn’t always mean coming out ahead financially, and those numbers should factor into any decision about whether to pursue or contest a writ.