Recent Changes - Search:
Site /

ULLCA 503(b)(2) Other Orders

Other_Orders Code ULLCASection503b2OtherOrders



503(b)

To the extent necessary to effectuate the collection of distributions pursuant to a charging order in effect under subsection (a), the court may:

(1) appoint a receiver of the distributions subject to the charging order, with the power to make all inquiries the judgment debtor might have made; and

(2) make all other orders necessary to give effect to the charging order.



Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b).

Paragraph (2) refers to "other orders" rather than "additional orders."
Therefore, given appropriate circumstances, a court may invoke Paragraph (1), Paragraph (2), or both.

Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b)(2) ¶ 1.

This paragraph must be understood in the context of:
(i) the very limited nature of the charging order; and
(ii) the importance of preventing overreaching on behalf of a person that is not a judgment creditor of the LLC, has no claim on the LLC's assets, and has no right to interfere in the activities, affairs, and management of the LLC. In particular, the court's power to make "all other orders" is limited to "orders necessary to give effect to the charging order."

Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b)(2) ¶ 2.

EXAMPLE:
A judgment creditor with a charging order believes that the limited liability company should invest less of its surplus in operations, leaving more funds for distributions.
The creditor moves the court for an order directing the limited liability company to restrict re-investment.
Subsection (b)(2) does not authorize the court to grant the motion.

Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b)(2) ¶ 3.

EXAMPLE:
A judgment creditor with a judgment for $10,000 against a member obtains a charging order against the member's transferable interest.
Having been properly served with the order, the limited liability company nonetheless fails to comply and makes a $3000 distribution to the member.
The court has the power to order the limited liability company to pay $3000 to the judgment creditor to "give effect to the charging order."

Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b)(2) ¶ 4.

Under Subsection (b)(2), the court has the power to decide whether a particular payment is a distribution, because that decision determines whether the payment is part of a transferable interest subject to a charging order.

Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b)(2) ¶ 5.

EXAMPLE:
Member A of ABC, LLC has for some years received distributions form the LLC.
However, when a judgment creditor of Member A obtains a charging order against Member A's transferable interest, the LLC ceases to make distributions to Member A and instead provides a salary to Member A equivalent to former distributions.
A court might deem this salary a disguised ddistribution. (In any event, however, the salary will be subject to garnishment.)

Reporter's Comment to Subsection (b)(2) ¶ 6.

This act has no specific rules for determining the fate or effect of a charging order when the limited liability company undergoes a merger, conversion, interest exchange, or domestication under [Article] 10.
In the proper circumstances, such an organic change might trigger an order under Subsection (b)(2).

JayNote

As the Reporter's Comment indicates, ¶ 2(b) gives the court wide latitude to fashion additional orders to carry out the charging order, including re-characterizing other income received by the debtor from the LLC as distributions. Example: Creditor is granted a charging order against Barbara's LLC interest. Soon thereafter, the LLC ceases to pay Barbara distributions, but she instead receives money from the LLC by way of "loans" or "management fees" or whatever. The court may re-characterize this money (known in creditor-debtor vernacular as "imputed income") as distributions. Ditto if the LLC paid Barbara's personal utility bills and credit cards, etc.
Note that savvy creditor rights counsel will often accompany a charging order with a Writ of Garnishment or some other remedy (or remedies) to as to pick up this other income no matter what the debtor and the LLC calls it.
For an excellent discussion of how a creditor may have the court include ancillary provisions in charging orders to prevent such shenanigans, see Law v. Zemp.

For a deeper dive into charging order compliance issues click here

Charging orders function as a specialized mechanism for judgment creditors to access a debtor’s membership or partnership interests while preserving business continuity and protecting non-debtor members. Jurisdictional approaches diverge significantly between strict asset-protection states like Delaware, Nevada, and Texas—where charging orders are often the exclusive remedy and foreclosure is prohibited—and creditor-friendly jurisdictions like California and Georgia that allow ancillary relief and equitable remedies such as reverse veil-piercing. Federal courts apply state substantive law under FRCP 69 to determine the availability and scope of these orders but maintain federal standards for contempt proceedings, which require clear and convincing evidence for civil sanctions or proof of willful violation for criminal penalties. Legal complexities often arise from the distinction between the “membership interest” itself and already-distributed funds, which courts generally treat as personal property subject to broader execution. Furthermore, while the remedy was historically intended to protect non-debtor partners, recent case law and statutory developments reflect ongoing debates regarding its application to single-member LLCs and the extent to which creditors can garnish entity-level assets. Recent decisions from the Tenth Circuit and Delaware Chancery Court emphasize that while statutory exclusivity is a potent defense against creditor overreach, it does not necessarily preclude claims targeting fraud or entity assets. Consequently, practitioners must navigate a fragmented landscape where the effectiveness of charging orders depends on precise statutory language, jurisdictional standards for exclusivity, and the court’s balancing of legislative intent against equitable considerations.

For a deeper dive into charging order procedural issues click here

The procedure for obtaining a charging order to enforce a money judgment against LLC or partnership interests is governed by significant procedural and substantive requirements. In federal court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) mandates adherence to the forum state's procedures while maintaining federal local rules and continuing jurisdiction. Generally, a judgment creditor must file a formal application demonstrating the debtor's membership interest, a burden that requires concrete evidence beyond mere agency. Due process necessitates actual notice and often formal service upon both the judgment debtor and the business entity, with some jurisdictions requiring additional registration with regulatory authorities. While courts exercise broad discretion in granting these equitable remedies and may order evidentiary hearings or discovery, the resulting order typically grants only assignee status, limiting the creditor's recovery to distributions to preserve business continuity. Statutory frameworks vary across jurisdictions regarding foreclosure rights, particularly for single-member entities, and interstate enforcement frequently necessitates domestication of the specific charging order. Priority is generally established by a first-in-time rule relative to service rather than the underlying judgment date. Strategic considerations include the potential for automatic liens upon notice of motion, as seen in California, and the ability of the entity or other members to extinguish the order by satisfying the underlying debt. Ultimately, strict adherence to local rules and specific state statutes is paramount to overcoming the procedural hurdles inherent in these post-judgment enforcement actions.

For a deeper dive into the form of charging orders click here

The charging order remains an ad hoc judgment enforcement remedy requiring practitioners to initiate customized motions supported by rigorous pre-filing discovery to establish the debtor’s interest in the limited liability company or partnership. Given the lack of statutory forms and the frequent unfamiliarity of trial judges with these vehicles, practitioners should provide comprehensive briefs that explain the statutory foundation and evidentiary support for each requested provision, often supplemented by addenda of previously entered orders to facilitate judicial comfort. Strategy dictates a one base at a time approach, focusing on the perfection of the charging lien before seeking foreclosure of the debtor’s interest. To prevent evasion through the recharacterization of distributions as salary, loans, or expense reimbursements, creditors should consider filing concurrent garnishments and seeking broad ancillary orders that define all consideration passing to the debtor as subject to the lien. While a charging order is primarily an economic remedy that reroutes distributions and encumbers the debtor's interest, its efficacy is maximized when used as one component of a larger collection strategy rather than a standalone tool. Furthermore, precise drafting must address the potential application of the Federal Wage Garnishment Law to disguised compensation and ensure the debtor is explicitly bound by the order to disclose financial materials and remit any funds received from the entity to the creditor under penalty of contempt.)

OTHER ORDERS OPINIONS