Site /
Intra-Member Judgments And Charging Orders
Topic Intramember TopicsIntramemberDisputes
PAGE SUMMARY
The charging order serves as the primary, and often exclusive, remedy for judgment creditors seeking to satisfy obligations from a debtor's interest in a limited liability company or partnership. Rooted in the "pick your partner" principle, this statutory mechanism typically confines a creditor's recovery to the debtor's economic rights—specifically the right to receive distributions—while prohibiting interference with the entity's management or internal governance. However, the legal landscape is characterized by a significant jurisdictional divergence. States such as Florida, Texas, and California maintain explicit statutory language designating charging orders as the sole remedy, whereas states like Connecticut and Colorado, whose statutes are silent on exclusivity, permit alternative remedies including direct execution and foreclosure. Judicial interpretation has further refined this framework through recognized exceptions. For instance, the Fifth Circuit and Texas courts have held that exclusivity does not apply when the LLC itself is the judgment creditor or when funds have already been distributed to the member. Additionally, Florida law explicitly provides for foreclosure of interests in single-member LLCs if a charging order is deemed insufficient. While proponents argue that exclusivity ensures commercial predictability and protects non-debtor members from disruption, critics contend that absolute exclusivity enables asset protection abuse. Recent cases like Bartch v. Barch underscore moving away from uniform exclusivity in the absence of express legislative mandates. Ultimately, an attorney evaluating these claims must conduct a multi-jurisdictional analysis focusing on the presence of express exclusivity language and state-specific case law regarding the entity-as-creditor exception, turnover of possessory assets, and the unique treatment of single-member entities.
♦ Charging Orders In Intramember Disputes
Introduction
The exclusive remedy for a judgment creditor of an LLC member or partner to satisfy a judgment out of that member’s or partner’s interest is generally a charging order against the member’s transferable interest or distributive share. This remedy grants the creditor only a lien on distributions the member or partner would receive, without conferring management rights, the right to demand distributions, or direct control of the entity. Courts emphasize that a charging order allows access solely to economic rights, preserving the autonomy of the LLC or partnership and protecting non-debtor members or partners from interference. However, exceptions exist where courts may order ancillary relief, such as turnover of distributions already made to the debtor or appointment of a receiver, but typically these remedies do not extend to possession or foreclosure of the membership or partnership interest itself. The exclusivity of charging orders reflects the "pick your partner" policy, preventing creditors from unilaterally injecting themselves into governance or disrupting the entity's business, except in rare circumstances like veil piercing or fraudulent transfer claims. These limitations apply in multiple jurisdictions, including Texas, California, Louisiana, and federal courts, with variations depending on statute and case law nuances. Cases such as Stanley v. Reef Securities, Inc. (Tex.), Young v. Levy (Fla.), and Heckert v. Heckert (general application) illustrate these principles and discuss narrowly tailored exceptions. Charging orders typically do not allow creditor participation in management, with foreclosure possible only where state law explicitly permits it. The remedy equally applies to partnerships and multi-member LLCs, while single-member LLCs may be treated differently depending on jurisdiction.
Regarding exceptions, some courts have permitted remedies beyond charging orders in exceptional cases where LLC or partnership business is inactive or closely held by related parties, thus not prejudicing others. Reverse veil piercing or fraudulent transfer theories may allow creditors to reach entity assets. Texas courts acknowledge the exclusivity of charging orders but have allowed turnover orders for already distributed funds, receiverships in narrowly defined circumstances, and other tailored relief when justified by equities. Similarly, Florida and Louisiana courts uphold exclusivity but reject attempts to compel distributions or membership rights, as exemplified in Young v. Levy and Voll v. Dunn respectively. The uniform trend maintains that creditors of members or partners are limited to economic interests via charging orders but may pursue other remedies outside these limitations where explicitly recognized by statute or case law.
Whether members of LLCs or partnerships with judgments against other members are limited to charging order remedies depends entirely on the specific state's statutory framework and judicial interpretation. There is a clear jurisdictional split: states with explicit "exclusive remedy" language in their LLC and partnership statutes generally enforce charging order exclusivity strictly, while states without such language permit alternative creditor remedies including direct execution, turnover orders, and foreclosure. Even in states with exclusivity provisions, courts have recognized limited exceptions, particularly when the LLC or partnership itself is the judgment creditor seeking to recover a member's interest.
Statutory Framework and Jurisdictional Variations
The foundation for charging order exclusivity lies in state statutory provisions, which vary significantly across jurisdictions. Many states have adopted versions of the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA) and Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) that include explicit exclusivity language. For example, Florida law provides that "a charging order is the sole and exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor of a member or member's transferee may satisfy a judgment from the judgment debtor's interest in a limited liability company or rights to distributions from the limited liability company". FL ST § 605.0503. Similarly, Texas Business Organizations Code states that "the entry of a charging order is the exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor of a member or of any other owner of a membership interest may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor's membership interest". TX BUS ORG § 101.112.
Other states with explicit exclusivity provisions include Pennsylvania, PA ST 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8853, Illinois, IL ST CH 805 § 180/30-20, California, CA CORP § 17705.03, Iowa, IA ST § 489.503, Minnesota, MN ST § 322C.0503, Nevada, NV ST 86.401, Michigan MI ST 450.4507, and South Carolina, SC ST § 33-44-504. These statutes generally prohibit judgment creditors from using traditional execution remedies against LLC or partnership interests and limit creditors to receiving only distributions that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor member.
In contrast, several states have LLC acts that do not contain exclusivity language. Connecticut's LLC Act, for instance, makes no mention of charging orders being the exclusive remedy., Not Reported in A.3d (2014). This statutory silence has led courts to permit alternative remedies, as demonstrated in Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014), where the Connecticut Superior Court allowed direct execution on LLC membership interests.
Federal Court Interpretations and Circuit Precedent
Federal courts have generally applied state law to determine charging order exclusivity, leading to circuit-specific interpretations based on the underlying state statutes. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Jiao v. Xu, 28 F.4th 591 (2022) exemplifies federal court deference to state law while recognizing important exceptions. The court held that Texas law's charging order exclusivity provision does not preclude turnover orders when the LLC itself is the judgment creditor seeking a member's interest. The court adopted the reasoning from Texas intermediate courts that the charging order exclusivity rationale does not apply when the judgment creditor is the entity from which the membership interest derives. Jiao v. Xu, 28 F.4th 591 (2022).
The Tenth Circuit reached a different conclusion in. Bartch v. Barch, 111 F.4th 1043 (2024), analyzing Colorado law and determining that charging orders are not exclusive remedies for LLC member interests. The court noted that Colorado's statute is "silent on whether it provides an exclusive remedy for a creditor seeking to enforce a judgment against an LLC member's interest," and observed that "the Colorado legislature could have specified that a charging order remedy is exclusive and did not do so". Bartch v. Barch, 111 F.4th 1043 (2024).
State Court Holdings on LLC Member Interests
State courts have developed divergent approaches to charging order exclusivity that generally track their statutory frameworks. Courts in states with explicit exclusivity language typically enforce these provisions strictly. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in Young v. Levy, 140 So.3d 1109 (2014) exemplified this approach, holding that garnishment violated Florida's charging order statute, which provides that "Except as provided in subsections (6) and (7), a charging order is the sole and exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor of a member or member's assignee may satisfy a judgment from the judgment debtor's interest in a limited liability company or rights to distributions from the limited liability company." § 608.433(5), Fla. Stat. (2011). The court applied strict statutory construction principles, noting that "when a statute is clear, this Court need not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent". Young v. Levy, 140 So.3d 1109 (2014).
Texas courts have similarly enforced exclusivity provisions while recognizing narrow exceptions. In. Gillet v. ZUPT, LLC, 523 S.W.3d 749 (2017), the Texas Court of Appeals created an important exception to charging order exclusivity when the LLC itself seeks turnover of a member's interest. The court distinguished this situation from typical charging order scenarios, explaining that "that reasoning for preventing foreclosure of a member's interest does not apply in a situation such as that before us, where the judgment creditor seeking turnover of the membership interest is the very same limited liability company from which the membership interest derives". Gillet v. ZUPT, LLC, 523 S.W.3d 749 (2017).
Conversely, courts in states without exclusivity language have permitted alternative remedies. The Connecticut Superior Court in Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014) conducted a thorough statutory analysis and concluded that Connecticut's LLC Act does not make charging orders exclusive because "the LLC Act is silent as to whether a charging order is the exclusive remedy available to the judgment creditors of an LLC member". Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014). The court noted that Connecticut's partnership statute explicitly provides exclusivity language, demonstrating that "the legislature is aware of and fully capable of making remedies exclusive when they so intend". Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014).
Partnership Interest Charging Order Exclusivity
Partnership interests present similar jurisdictional variations in charging order exclusivity. The Connecticut Appellate Court in Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 (1994) held that "the charging order is the sole remedy available to a judgment creditor of a partner" because partner's rights in specific partnership property cannot be attached or made subject to execution. Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 (1994). The court also recognized that "a charging creditor can foreclose on a partner's interest in the partnership". Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 (1994), demonstrating that exclusivity does not preclude all alternative remedies.
California courts have authorized foreclosure of charged partnership interests under certain circumstances. In Hellman v. Anderson, 233 Cal.App.3d 840 (1991), the California Court of Appeal held that foreclosure of a statutory charging order was permissible, distinguishing between direct execution (which is prohibited) and foreclosure following a proper charging order (which is authorized). The court noted that commentators widely accept that the Uniform Partnership Act's charging order provision authorizes the sale of the charged partnership interest. Hellman v. Anderson, 233 Cal.App.3d 840 (1991).
Some courts have permitted execution remedies for partnership interests in limited circumstances. The federal bankruptcy court in. In re Allen, 228 B.R. 115 (1998) analyzed Pennsylvania law and concluded that while judgment creditors could proceed against limited partnership interests through charging orders, "charging order was not creditor's sole available remedy." Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3108(a)(3), "the interest of ... [a] defendant in a partnership may be garnished by service of a writ of execution upon the partnership as garnishee". In re Allen, 228 B.R. 115 (1998).
Exceptions to Charging Order Exclusivity
Even in jurisdictions with strict exclusivity provisions, courts have recognized several categories of exceptions that permit alternative creditor remedies. The most significant exception applies when the entity itself is the judgment creditor. Texas courts established this principle in. Gillet v. ZUPT, LLC, 523 S.W.3d 749 (2017), and the Fifth Circuit endorsed this approach in. Jiao v. Xu, 28 F.4th 591 (2022). This exception recognizes that the policy rationale for charging order exclusivity—protecting business operations from external creditor disruption—does not apply when the entity seeks to recover interests from its own member.
Courts have also permitted turnover orders for distributions already received by members. The Texas Court of Appeals in Stanley v. Reef Securities, Inc., 314 S.W.3d 659 (2010) held that charging order exclusivity applies only to a member's "partnership interest," but "But once a partnership distribution has been made to a partner, it ceases to be the partner's 'partnership interest' (i.e. the partner's right to receive his share of the profits) and becomes that partner's personal property. ... Nothing in the plain language of section 153.256 precludes a judgment creditor from seeking the turnover of proceeds from a partnership distribution after that distribution has been made and is in the debtor partner's possession.". Stanley v. Reef Securities, Inc., 314 S.W.3d 659 (2010)
Single-member LLCs receive reduced protection in several jurisdictions. Florida law explicitly provides an exception for single-member LLCs, allowing foreclosure when "a judgment creditor... establishes to the satisfaction of a court of competent jurisdiction that distributions under a charging order will not satisfy the judgment within a reasonable time" FL ST § 605.0503. This exception recognizes the practical ineffectiveness of charging orders when the debtor member controls all distribution decisions.
Arguments and Rebuttals
Arguments Supporting Charging Order Exclusivity
Plain Statutory Language
Courts must enforce clear statutory text that explicitly designates charging orders as the "sole and exclusive remedy". Young v. Levy, 140 So.3d 1109 (2014)
Legislative intent is manifest when statutes use unambiguous exclusivity language
Judicial creation of exceptions contradicts express legislative choices
Anticipated Rebuttals: Opponents argue that statutory construction principles require courts to consider policy purposes and avoid absurd results, and that rigid application of exclusivity language can frustrate legitimate creditor collection efforts.
Business Protection Policy
Charging order exclusivity prevents external creditors from disrupting ongoing business operations through forced sales of member interests.Gillet v. ZUPT, LLC, 523 S.W.3d 749 (2017)
Alternative remedies could force unwanted partners into business relationships
The charging order framework balances creditor rights with entity stability
Anticipated Rebuttals: Critics contend that this policy rationale does not apply uniformly, particularly in single-member entities or when the entity itself seeks recovery, and that absolute exclusivity can enable asset protection abuse.
Uniform Commercial Predictability
Consistent enforcement of exclusivity provisions provides certainty for business planning and creditor expectations
Judicial exceptions create uncertainty about available remedies across jurisdictions
Clear rules facilitate interstate commerce and entity formation decisions
Anticipated Rebuttals: Challengers note that jurisdictional variations already exist due to different statutory frameworks, and that rigid exclusivity can produce inequitable results that undermine creditor confidence.
Arguments Against Charging Order Exclusivity
Statutory Construction Principles
Absence of explicit exclusivity language indicates legislative intent to preserve alternative remedies. Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014)
Courts should not read exclusivity into statutes that do not contain such provisions
Traditional creditor remedies should remain available unless clearly prohibited
Anticipated Rebuttals: Supporters argue that modern LLC statutes represent deliberate departures from traditional creditor remedies, and that charging order provisions implicitly displace other collection mechanisms even without express exclusivity language.
Prevention of Asset Protection Abuse
Strict charging order exclusivity enables debtors to shield assets from legitimate creditors through LLC structures
Single-member and debtor-controlled entities can render charging orders completely ineffective
The Connecticut Superior Court in Voll v. Dunn noted concerns about asset protection abuse in single-member LLCs (citing Justice Zarella's concurrence in Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. State Five Industrial Park), though it emphasized this was dicta from a different case. The court's holding was based on statutory construction principles and the absence of exclusivity language in the LLC Act. Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014).
Anticipated Rebuttals: Proponents respond that asset protection is a legitimate business purpose, that charging orders provide adequate creditor protection through distribution rights, and that other legal doctrines address abusive transfers.
Equitable Considerations
Courts possess inherent authority to fashion appropriate remedies based on specific factual circumstances
Charging orders may be inadequate when entities make no distributions or when members control distribution timing
Turnover and foreclosure remedies serve legitimate collection purposes, but courts must evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether foreclosure will unduly interfere with partnership business operations before ordering such relief. Hellman v. Anderson, 233 Cal.App.3d 840 (1991)
Anticipated Rebuttals: Defenders contend that equitable considerations cannot override clear statutory mandates, that charging orders include foreclosure provisions where appropriate, and that legislative remedies should address inadequacies rather than judicial interventions.
Cases on Both Sides
Supporting Charging Order Exclusivity
Young v. Levy, 140 So.3d 1109 (2014) — The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that garnishment of LLC distributions violated the state's charging order statute. The court applied strict statutory construction to Florida's explicit "sole and exclusive remedy" language and rejected attempts to use traditional creditor remedies against LLC member interests.
Pansky v. Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., 264 So.3d 961 (2019) — The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a trial court's order transferring all right, title and interest in an LLC to a judgment creditor exceeded the allowable scope under state law. The court emphasized that charging orders provide the exclusive statutory remedy for judgment creditors seeking to satisfy judgments from LLC member interests.
Klinek v. LuxeYard, Inc., 672 S.W.3d 830 (2023) — The Texas Court of Appeals held that judgment debtor's LLC membership interests were not subject to turnover relief because charging orders provide the exclusive remedy for satisfying judgments from membership interests. The court recognized limited exceptions only when distributions had already been made to the member or when specific factual circumstances justified alternative remedies.
Rejecting Charging Order Exclusivity
Voll v. Dunn, Not Reported in A.3d (2014) — The Connecticut Superior Court held that charging orders under Connecticut's LLC Act are not exclusive remedies because the statute contains no exclusivity language. The court reasoned that the legislature demonstrated awareness of how to create exclusive remedies in the partnership context but chose not to do so for LLCs.
Bartch v. Barch, 111 F.4th 1043 (2024) — The Tenth Circuit held under Colorado law that charging orders are not exclusive remedies for judgment creditors seeking to enforce judgments against LLC member interests. The court noted that Colorado's statute is silent on exclusivity while other state provisions explicitly address the issue, indicating legislative choice not to restrict creditor remedies.
Olmstead v. F.T.C., 44 So.3d 76 (2010) — The Florida Supreme Court held that courts could order judgment debtors to surrender all rights in single-member LLCs to satisfy outstanding judgments under the pre-amendment statute. The court applied statutory construction principles to conclude that the absence of explicit exclusivity language preserved traditional creditor remedies under execution statutes.
Recent Developments
The Tenth Circuit's 2024 decision in. Bartch v. Barch, 111 F.4th 1043 (2024) represents a significant federal precedent establishing that Colorado does not treat charging orders as exclusive remedies for LLC member interests. This ruling provides definitive guidance for creditors operating in non-exclusivity jurisdictions and demonstrates federal court willingness to enforce state law variations rather than seeking uniformity across jurisdictions.
Texas courts have continued refining the scope of their exclusivity provisions through recent decisions. The 2023 ruling in Klinek v. LuxeYard, Inc., 672 S.W.3d 830 (2023) clarified that while charging orders remain the exclusive remedy for LLC membership interests, courts will permit turnover orders for distributions already received by members and may authorize alternative remedies in specific factual circumstances that do not undermine the statutory framework.
Florida's post-Olmstead statutory amendments have created a more nuanced approach to single-member LLCs. Current Florida law under section 605.0503, FL ST § 605.0503 maintains charging order exclusivity as the general rule but explicitly permits foreclosure when charging orders prove ineffective for single-member entities, representing legislative recognition that absolute exclusivity can produce inequitable results in certain structural contexts. ♦
INTRAMEMBER ARTICLES
- 2015.03.29 ... The MacDaddy Of All Intra-Member Charging Order Versus Levy Disputes In Voll
- 2014.06.21 ... The Charging Order Is Wear It’s At, LLC, In Intra-Member Dispute