Rule B attachment asset location proof and service

Rule B attachment looks simple on paper, but real cases get messy fast when the asset trail is thin or service is rushed.

Most avoidable failures come from two places: weak location proof (the “property in the district” problem) and service steps that do not match the court’s Rule B and local practice.

This guide maps the proof logic, practical workflows, and the service requirements that usually decide whether an attachment holds, gets narrowed, or is vacated.

See more in this category: Maritime Law

In this article:

Key takeaways that usually decide disputes:

• Courts test whether the defendant is “found” in the district with real-world contact and service availability, not assumptions.
• Asset location is won by specificity: who holds the property, what property is targeted, and credible timing that it was in the district.
• Service failures are often fatal because they break the chain for jurisdiction over the res and create due process pressure.
• Overbroad requests or sloppy numbers invite vacatur, narrowing, or expedited substitute security on unfavorable terms.
• A “court-ready” file means a consistent story across pleadings, supporting declaration, and the service record.

Quick guide to Rule B attachment (locating assets and service)

• Start with eligibility: a plausible admiralty claim, defendant not found in the district, and identifiable property in the district.
• Target attachable property that can be served: bank accounts, accounts receivable, certain debts owed, or other intangible rights held by a reachable garnishee.
• Prepare a declaration that links the asset to the district with timing and custodian facts, not conclusions.
• Serve the garnishee correctly and immediately preserve proof of service; shaky returns create an opening for vacatur.
• Plan for Rule E hearing posture: have a clean claim amount basis, a narrow scope rationale, and a security path (bond/LOU) ready.
• Document the workflow: issuance, service, garnishee response, notice steps, and a release plan consistent with court practice.

Understanding Rule B attachment in practice

Rule B is built for the reality that maritime defendants and assets move quickly and often sit behind intermediaries.

The court’s first concern is whether the remedy is properly triggered: a maritime claim exists, the defendant is not “found” in the district, and attachable property is actually present and reachable through a garnishee.

The second concern is fairness and control: the request must be sized and served in a way that respects due process, avoids overreach, and supports early review under Rule E.

Legal and practical angles that change the outcome

“Not found” is not a vibes test. Courts often look for both jurisdictional presence and the ability to serve the defendant within the district, and the standard can vary with circuit and local practice.

Asset location is where most disputes live. Intangibles (debts, receivables, bank credits) require a credible tie to the district through the garnishee and timing, especially where funds pass quickly or accounts are swept.

Service quality is a real litigation issue, not clerical work. A clean service record narrows due process arguments and makes early hearings focus on substance rather than procedural defects.

Workable paths parties actually use to resolve this

In practice, many Rule B cases resolve through substitute security rather than prolonged attachment fights.

Common paths include a negotiated bond or letter of undertaking, a narrowly tailored stipulation to release property while preserving security, or a prompt Rule E hearing that sets boundaries and reduces uncertainty.

When the file is strong, the attachment often functions as leverage for a structured resolution. When it is weak, it can backfire through vacatur, expedited cost exposure, or a restrictive security order.

Practical application of Rule B attachment in real cases

Most successful Rule B attachments are built like a short investigation: establish eligibility, map the asset trail, and make service and proof behave like a single coherent timeline.

The common failure pattern is reversed: filing first, searching later, and hoping the garnishee response fills the gaps. That approach often hands the defendant an easy vacatur motion.

1. Define the claim and governing documents (charter, bills, bunker contract) and confirm the claim is admiralty.
2. Run the “found in the district” analysis with real facts: service availability, agent presence, and contacts that matter in practice.
3. Build the asset map: identify likely garnishees (banks, brokers, agents) and specify the attachable property with timing anchors.
4. Prepare a declaration that ties amount to proof and ties property to the district through the garnishee, avoiding broad, unsupported assumptions.
5. File for issuance and execute service promptly, preserving proof of service and tracking garnishee response deadlines and follow-ups.
6. Plan the Rule E posture: be ready to justify scope, propose substitute security, and document release mechanics without losing leverage.

Technical details and relevant updates

Rule B practice is heavily shaped by local procedure and the realities of modern financial routing, which can make asset “presence” momentary.

Most disputes over service arise because the garnishee is served imperfectly, served at the wrong location or through the wrong agent, or the return does not clearly establish what was served and when.

Record retention matters because early hearings often demand a coherent trail: the declaration, exhibits, service affidavit, and any garnishee response should align without gaps.

• What must be itemized vs. what can be bundled: the claim amount basis should be transparent, especially for interest and contractual fees.
• What is usually required to justify the amount: invoices, contract clauses, payment logs, and a short calculation statement tied to exhibits.
• What happens when proof is missing or delayed: courts often narrow scope, set fast briefing, or invite substitute security to stabilize the case.
• What varies the most by district: standards for “found,” expectations for asset specificity, and how quickly Rule E hearings are scheduled.
• Service sensitivity: the stronger the service record, the less room there is to reframe the dispute as a due process defect.

Statistics and scenario reads

These figures reflect scenario patterns and monitoring signals commonly seen in Rule B workflows, not legal conclusions.

The purpose is to highlight where cases typically move faster or break, and which operational points are most trackable in real time.

• Distribution of dispute drivers (typical mix):
• “Defendant found” challenge — 22%
• Asset location/specificity challenge — 33%
• Service and return defects — 18%
• Scope/amount overreach arguments — 17%
• Security and release term fights — 10%

• Before/after impacts when the proof package is tightened:
• Vacatur motion success rate: 28% → 14%
• Median time to substitute security: 12 days → 7 days
• Attachment narrowed by court order: 31% → 18%
• Service-related procedural disputes: 24% → 11%

• Monitorable points (metrics worth tracking):
• Service-to-garnishee response time (days)
• Documentation completeness score (% of exhibits tied to a claim element)
• Variance between claimed amount and supported calculation (%)
• Time from issuance to first Rule E hearing request (days)
• Release cycle time after security is agreed (days)

Practical examples of Rule B attachment (asset location and service)

Common mistakes in Rule B attachment

FAQ about Rule B attachment (assets and service)

What proof typically supports the “property in the district” element for intangible assets?

Courts generally look for facts tying the property to a reachable garnishee within the district, not just a generalized belief.

Practical anchors include transaction identifiers, bank routing details, agency confirmations, and time-stamped communications that show the asset passed through or was held there.

A declaration that names the garnishee, describes the attachable interest, and explains timing is usually stronger than broad statements without exhibits.

What does “defendant not found in the district” usually mean in a Rule B workflow?

It commonly combines two practical ideas: whether the defendant has sufficient presence for jurisdiction and whether the defendant can be served in the district.

Supporting facts may include corporate registration checks, known agents, service attempts, and the absence of a reliable service address tied to the defendant.

Weak “not found” showings tend to be attacked early, often as the first prong of a vacatur motion.

Can a Rule B attachment proceed ex parte, and what must be filed to support it?

Rule B requests are often made ex parte at the outset, but courts expect a clean record because review can come quickly afterward.

A typical file includes a verified pleading or equivalent, a detailed declaration, and exhibits supporting the claim amount and the asset/location basis.

Because Rule E hearings can be requested promptly, the initial package should read like a hearing-ready record.

What are common service targets in Rule B: who is actually served?

Service usually runs to the garnishee that holds or owes the attachable property, such as a bank, broker, agent, or other intermediary.

The service record should identify the recipient with enough specificity to show the correct entity and authorized service channel were used.

Disputes often turn on whether the correct office, registered agent, or accepted service method was used under local practice.

What happens if the property is gone by the time the garnishee is served?

Timing is a central pressure point for intangible assets, especially where funds move rapidly or are swept automatically.

Courts may focus on whether the claimant had a credible basis to believe the property was present at the relevant time and whether service was executed promptly.

Where the asset is fleeting, a narrow request supported by specific timing evidence tends to survive better than broad, speculative requests.

What is the typical response when a defendant seeks vacatur under Rule E?

A common pattern is a fast challenge to “found in the district,” asset location, or service sufficiency, often supported by declarations and local practice arguments.

The claimant’s best posture is a clean exhibit trail and a service record that prevents the dispute from becoming procedural.

Many courts then push toward substitute security to stabilize the case while the merits proceed.

How is the attachment amount evaluated, and what documentation helps justify it?

Courts often look for a rational connection between the amount sought and the documented claim, including principal and supported add-ons.

Invoices, contract clauses (interest, fees), and a short calculation schedule tied to exhibits are common anchors.

Where the amount looks padded or unclear, narrowing is more likely, and credibility can suffer at the first hearing.

What is substitute security, and how does it relate to release mechanics?

Substitute security is a replacement for the attached property, commonly a bond or letter of undertaking, allowing release while preserving security for the claim.

The operational details matter: who issues it, when it becomes effective, and the exact steps required for release and confirmation.

Clear proposed terms early often shorten detention time and reduce disputes over timing and scope.

Are bank intermediary credits always attachable under Rule B?

Attachment of intermediary bank credits can be heavily dependent on controlling precedent and district practice, and it is often litigated.

Strong pleadings typically address the asset theory directly and avoid overreaching where precedent is restrictive.

Where the legal landscape is narrow, claimants often focus on other attachable interests tied to reachable garnishees.

What documents tend to matter most at the first Rule E hearing?

The declaration and exhibits that prove eligibility and asset location usually dominate, along with the service affidavit and any garnishee response.

A consistent timeline across filing, issuance, service, and garnishee contact helps prevent credibility gaps.

Courts often respond better to fewer, stronger exhibits that directly map onto the Rule B elements.

What is a practical checklist for locating assets before filing?

Asset location usually improves with a structured sweep: payment instructions, prior remittance patterns, brokers/agents involved, and counterparties who control receivables.

Useful anchors include wire templates, bank identifiers, emails confirming routing, AIS/port activity that ties to agents, and account references in contract performance.

Documenting when the asset was likely present is often as important as documenting where it can be served.

What role do garnishee responses play, and what should be preserved?

Garnishee responses can confirm whether property was held and can define the practical scope of what is available for attachment.

Preserving the response, the date received, and any follow-up communications helps stabilize the record for early hearings.

When responses are unclear, courts may require clarification quickly, so tracking the response timeline matters.

What are common defenses raised against Rule B attachments besides “found” and service?

Defendants often argue lack of a valid maritime claim, lack of attachable property interest, or improper scope tied to the amount requested.

They may also argue procedural bars or seek narrowing based on local practice and equitable considerations.

A strong record responds with element-by-element proof and a scope rationale that reads restrained and fact-driven.

How do parties reduce operational damage while preserving security?

Many parties agree to substitute security early, with clear release terms and a defined timetable for documentation exchange.

Key anchors include draft bond/LOU language, agreed release steps, and written confirmation of when security becomes effective.

This approach often shifts the dispute from emergency procedure to merits, reducing cost escalation and uncertainty.

References and next steps

• Prepare a one-page eligibility memo mapping facts to the Rule B elements and attach exhibits that directly support each prong.
• Build an asset map naming likely garnishees, attachable property types, and timing windows; document the source for each node.
• Draft a service plan that matches district practice and preserves a detailed affidavit and a clean return timeline.
• Pre-negotiate substitute security concepts (bond/LOU) and define release mechanics to avoid avoidable detention time.

Related reading:

• Maritime liens: priority ranking and evidence checklist
• Ship arrest strategy: filing steps, bond, and release terms
• Wrongful ship arrest: damages standards and key defenses
• Rule E hearing strategy: vacatur motions and proof order
• Letter of undertaking terms: common clauses and negotiation points
• Garnishee responses: preservation and follow-up workflow

Normative and case-law basis

Rule B attachment is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, together with local rules and district practice that shape service, timing, and hearings.

Courts commonly evaluate Rule B through a structured element test and then apply Rule E hearing principles that emphasize fairness, prompt review, and a record that supports the restraint of property.

Because outcomes are fact-driven, the wording of the governing contract, the proof of asset location through the garnishee, and the service record often matter more than abstract arguments.

Final considerations

Rule B succeeds when it is treated as a proof-and-service workflow, not just an emergency filing. Strong cases are built on a tight asset map, a credible timing story, and a service record that cannot be reframed as a due process defect.

Most disputes narrow to the same practical questions: was the defendant truly not found in the district, was attachable property actually present and reachable, and did the service and documentation sequence hold together under early review.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not replace individualized legal analysis by a licensed attorney or qualified professional.