Three statutory remedies, attachment, garnishment, and sequestration, give Texas plaintiffs the ability to reach specific property of the defendant before and after judgment. Each has its own grounds, procedure, and scope. They are sometimes confused with each other, with general injunctive relief, and with collection remedies that look similar in practice. Used correctly, they provide effective tools for plaintiffs facing concrete asset-protection problems. Used incorrectly, they produce wrongful-process exposure and case losses.
The sections below take each remedy in turn, what it does, when it applies, and how it fits into broader emergency relief and collection strategy.
Attachment under Chapter 61
What it is. Pre-judgment seizure of the defendant’s property to secure the eventual judgment. The constable or sheriff takes physical possession of the property under court order, holding it pending the case outcome.
When it applies. Chapter 61 specifies the grounds in section 61.002. The principal categories:
- The defendant is about to remove property from Texas with intent to defraud creditors.
- The defendant has disposed of or is about to dispose of property with intent to defraud creditors.
- The defendant has converted property held in a fiduciary capacity.
- The defendant is a nonresident.
- Other specifically enumerated grounds in section 61.002.
The grounds require sworn evidence, the plaintiff cannot simply allege; the affidavit supporting the application must present facts showing the grounds exist.
Procedure. The plaintiff files a sworn application identifying the grounds, the property, and the amount of the claim. The plaintiff posts bond protecting the defendant from damages from wrongful attachment. The court issues a writ of attachment authorizing seizure by the officer. The defendant can challenge the attachment through procedures including replevy by posting counter-bond.
Limitations. Attachment reaches non-exempt property of the defendant. Texas homestead, retirement accounts, and other exempt property are generally unreachable. The remedy requires identifiable property; broad fishing through the defendant’s holdings is not permitted.
Strategic uses. Attachment is most useful when:
- Specific identifiable property is at risk of removal or dissipation.
- The grounds in section 61.002 can be supported with concrete evidence.
- The property’s value is sufficient to justify the procedural cost of attachment.
Garnishment under Chapter 63
What it is. A procedure for reaching property of the defendant that is held by a third party, most commonly bank accounts. The garnishee (the third party) is required to hold the property and account to the court for it.
When it applies. Post-judgment garnishment is the standard context, allowing judgment creditors to collect by reaching the judgment debtor’s assets held by banks and others. Chapter 63 also authorizes pre-judgment garnishment in specific circumstances, generally requiring the same kinds of grounds that support pre-judgment attachment.
Procedure. The plaintiff files an application identifying the garnishee. The court issues a writ of garnishment served on the garnishee. The garnishee must answer concerning property held, what accounts exist, what balances, what other obligations to the defendant. The defendant can challenge the garnishment, and the court resolves the property questions on the record before ordering release of garnished funds.
Common applications.
- Bank account garnishment, the most common form. The bank must hold the defendant’s funds up to the amount of the garnishment when the writ is served.
- Wage garnishment, limited by federal Consumer Credit Protection Act caps and Texas restrictions; available in fewer Texas cases than in many other states.
- Accounts receivable garnishment, reaching customers who owe money to the defendant.
Strategic uses. Garnishment is the standard collection tool post-judgment. It is also useful in pre-judgment contexts when the grounds support pre-judgment seizure and the goal is to freeze specific accounts at the bank rather than to physically seize property.
Sequestration under Chapter 62
What it is. A procedure to obtain possession of specific personal property at issue in the litigation when the plaintiff has a legal claim to that specific property. Unlike attachment (which targets property generally as security for the eventual judgment), sequestration targets the specific property at the heart of the dispute.
When it applies. Chapter 62 governs sequestration generally, with section 62.001 specifying when it is available:
- When the plaintiff has a right to the specific personal property at issue.
- When the property is in the defendant’s possession or control.
- When the property is at risk of being damaged, removed, concealed, or otherwise placed beyond the court’s reach.
The classic use is reclamation under security agreements, when collateral securing a debt is at risk of dissipation, sequestration lets the secured creditor obtain possession pending the case.
Procedure. The plaintiff files an application describing the specific property, the plaintiff’s claim to it, and the grounds for sequestration. The plaintiff posts bond protecting the defendant against wrongful sequestration. The court issues a writ of sequestration authorizing the officer to take possession. The defendant can challenge the sequestration or replevy by posting counter-bond.
Strategic uses. Sequestration is most useful when:
- Specific tangible personal property is at issue in the underlying dispute.
- The plaintiff has a recognized claim to that specific property.
- The property is at concrete risk of loss, damage, or concealment.
Comparing the three remedies
| Aspect | Attachment | Garnishment | Sequestration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | General property | Property held by third party | Specific disputed property |
| Timing | Pre-judgment | Post- or pre-judgment | Pre-judgment |
| Statutory authority | Ch. 61 | Ch. 63 | Ch. 62 |
| Standard use | Asset security pending case | Bank account collection | Reclamation of disputed item |
The choice among them depends on what property the plaintiff is trying to reach and what claim the plaintiff has to it.
Procedural overlap with constitutional concerns
All three remedies allow seizure of property without prior adversary hearing in some circumstances. They have been subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Due Process Clause, and Texas procedures have been adjusted over time to address constitutional concerns.
Current Texas procedure typically includes:
- Sworn application establishing grounds.
- Court review before issuance.
- Bond requirement protecting against wrongful use.
- Notice to the defendant after the seizure.
- Prompt opportunity for the defendant to challenge.
- Replevy by counter-bond as an alternative to challenge.
These procedural safeguards generally satisfy constitutional requirements. Practitioners should follow the statutory procedures carefully, shortcuts can produce constitutional challenges that defeat the remedy.
Wrongful process exposure
Each remedy carries wrongful-process exposure. When the plaintiff invokes the remedy without adequate grounds, the defendant can recover damages from the bond and (in some cases) beyond the bond.
Wrongful attachment. Damages from improper seizure of property, lost use, loss of business, costs of recovery.
Wrongful garnishment. Damages to the defendant from improper restraint of accounts or other obligations.
Wrongful sequestration. Damages from improper deprivation of the specific property.
Plaintiffs evaluate the wrongful-process exposure carefully before invoking these remedies. The bond amount caps the defendant’s recovery in most cases, but the underlying exposure (and the strategic damage of a wrongful-process finding) is meaningful.
Coordination with other remedies
These statutory remedies fit into broader case strategy:
With TUFTA fraudulent transfer claims. TUFTA provides its own remedies that may overlap with attachment and garnishment. Coordinating the theories captures the best features of each.
With injunctive relief. Cases involving ongoing dissipation often need both general injunctive restraints and specific statutory seizures. The combined approach provides broader protection.
With receivership. Where receivership is the appropriate remedy, the receiver may pursue attachment, garnishment, or sequestration of specific property as part of the receivership.
With post-judgment collection. Post-judgment, garnishment becomes the principal collection tool. Coordination with our Texas Collections practice is standard. See our texascollections.com practice.
Pick the right writ, prove it, weigh the bond
We match the remedy to the situation. The three serve different purposes, and the wrong one wastes effort. We support every application with concrete evidence; the statutory grounds require facts, not conclusions, and the cases that succeed are the ones with documentary backing. We coordinate across practices, since a matter that starts as attachment or sequestration often grows into fraudulent transfer or collection work that our satellite practices already cover. And we weigh the wrongful-process exposure up front, the bond and the liability for improper use belong in the strategic decision, not in a surprise later.
These are sharp tools with a recoil. Reach for one only when the grounds are real and the evidence is in hand, a wrongful-process finding can cost more than the property was worth.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between attachment, garnishment, and sequestration in Texas?
Three distinct statutory remedies. Attachment under Chapter 61 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows pre-judgment seizure of a defendant's property in cases meeting specific grounds. Garnishment under Chapter 63 reaches property of the defendant held by a third party (typically a bank or other debtor of the defendant). Sequestration under Chapter 62 applies to specific property at issue in the litigation when the plaintiff has a claim to that specific property. Each has different elements, procedures, and applicable contexts.
When can a Texas plaintiff use pre-judgment attachment?
Chapter 61 requires the plaintiff to establish one of the statutory grounds: the defendant is about to remove property from Texas with intent to defraud creditors, has secreted or disposed of property with that intent, is about to do so, has converted property held in a fiduciary capacity, is a nonresident, or other specifically enumerated grounds. The grounds are demanding, pre-judgment attachment is not available simply because the plaintiff fears non-payment. Evidence of dissipation intent or other statutory grounds must be presented to the court.
How does Texas garnishment work?
Texas garnishment under Chapter 63 allows a plaintiff to reach property of the defendant held by a third party, most commonly bank accounts, but also wages held by employers (limited by federal law), accounts receivable held by customers, and other obligations owed to the defendant. The plaintiff files an application identifying the garnishee, the court issues a writ of garnishment served on the garnishee, and the garnishee must answer concerning property held. Post-judgment garnishment is the typical context; pre-judgment garnishment is available in limited circumstances.
What is sequestration in Texas?
Sequestration under Chapter 62 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows the plaintiff to obtain possession of specific personal property at issue in the lawsuit when the plaintiff has a claim to that property. Common uses include reclamation of property under security agreements, retrieval of property held under bailment in disputes about ownership, and recovery of specific property at risk of being concealed or damaged. The plaintiff must post bond and follow specific statutory procedures.
What bonds are required for these remedies?
Each remedy requires the plaintiff to post bond protecting the defendant from damages from wrongful use of the remedy. Attachment bond protects against wrongful attachment damages. Garnishment bond protects the garnishee (and the defendant) against wrongful garnishment. Sequestration bond protects against wrongful sequestration damages. The bond amount is set by the court based on the value of the property at issue and the potential damages. Bond posting is a prerequisite to issuance of the writs; failure to post the bond suspends the remedy.