Rule 64.Seizure of Person or Property

Rule 64 does not create a remedy; it preserves the ones Tennessee law already provides. At the start of a case, or at any point while it is pending, a party can pursue arrest, attachment, garnishment, replevin, sequestration, or any comparable device aimed at seizing a person or property to secure whatever judgment the case eventually produces — provided the underlying statute or common-law basis for that remedy still applies. The rule lists these examples but does not limit itself to them, reaching any equivalent remedy under whatever name it goes by, whether it runs alongside the main lawsuit or has to be pursued as its own separate action.

Because Rule 64 borrows its remedies wholesale from outside sources, a party invoking it has to look past the rule itself to the statute or doctrine that authorizes the seizure. That matters most where an older seizure statute has never been updated to reflect the notice-and-hearing protections due process requires before property can be taken from someone who has not yet lost the case on the merits. Tennessee’s replevin statute, for instance, was rewritten after courts found it constitutionally deficient on that score, but other seizure statutes on the books have not gone through the same scrutiny, so a lawyer reaching for one of those older remedies should confirm it still holds up before relying on it.

Rule 64 also marks a boundary against neighboring provisions serving different purposes. It covers only provisional remedies aimed at securing a future judgment, not the appointment of a receiver under Rule 66, which preserves property for the court’s own administration rather than for one party’s benefit, and not an injunction under Rule 65, which restrains or compels conduct rather than seizing property outright.