Should the ruling regarding seizure of property apply if the claimed property is a debt owed by a third party?

Primary text

There are two differing opinions regarding whether the judge should take possession of the absent heir's share if the asset is a debt owed by someone. One opinion is that the judge should take possession, similar to taking possession of tangible assets. The preferred view is that taking possession is better, as the debt itself is exposed to loss through bankruptcy, death, or the judge's removal, just as is the case with physical property held in trust.