ILNews

DTCI: He's No Creditor of Mine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
massaro-august-mug Massaro

The scenario is this: Your client is one of several members in a Multi-Member Indiana Limited Liability Company. Although business is good, your client learns that one of his co-members has creditors with a judgment against him and the judgment creditor now looks to the debtor-member’s LLC interest for collection. This article is designed to briefly examine the rights of the respective parties.

The Corporate Veil

As we all know, one of the largest benefits of incorporation (in this case an LLC) is the personal asset protection provided to its members. Regardless of corporate form, this protection is widely known as the “corporate veil.” However, this corporate veil protection is not absolute. Indiana law is well established that a creditor can “pierce the corporate veil” if it can prove that, among other things, the corporation was used to promote fraud, injustice, or illegal activities and/or the corporation was merely a “shell” to avoid personal liability.

While certainly not the situation all the time, I would submit that these aspects are less likely to be found in an MMLLC than in a Single Member LLC. In the latter, there is no one to look over an owner-member’s shoulder should he improperly commingle funds, pay for personal purchases through the business, attempt to hide assets, or otherwise fail to comply with corporate formalities. Irrespective of these possible differences, a piercing count and its concomitant analysis apply where a creditor has a judgment against the LLC itself. There is a different analysis as well as statutory and case law where an individual or entity is the personal creditor of a member of an LLC.

Outsider-Reverse Veil Piercing

Even where compliance with corporate formalities is met, members of an LLC may still face threats from the creditors of its individual members. An attempt to thwart the LLC’s touted protections and collect on a creditor’s personal judgment is known by various names including “outsider-reverse veil piercing.” Under the concept of ORVP, a personal creditor of a member may disregard the corporation’s separate legal existence and attempt to reach the debtor-member’s rights in the LLC. As will be discussed immediately below, this can be accomplished – depending upon particular state law – in various ways.

I.C. 23-18-6-7 and Charging Orders

The statute under analysis herein is I.C. 23-18-6-7. That statute sets out the rights of judgment creditors vis-a-vis members of an LLC. Under I.C. 23-18-6-7, a creditor may petition a court to allow it to charge a member’s interest in the LLC for the payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. The relevant section reads: “[o]n application to a court with jurisdiction by a judgment creditor of a member, the court may charge the interest of the member in the limited liability company with the payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment with interest.” I.C. 23-18-6-7(a). This is known as a request for a charging order.

In its simplest form, a charging order is tantamount to a garnishment order except that, given the discretionary nature of distributions, payments are not so surely guaranteed. It is the vehicle by which a lien is placed upon a member’s economic interests in an LLC. Stated differently, the judgment-creditor obtains a charging order against the debtor-member which, in turn, places a lien upon the economic interest in the LLC to collect the judgment.

An economic interest is generally described as the right to share in the income, gains and losses of the LLC as well as to receive distributions. On the other hand, a noneconomic interest of a member generally means a member’s right to vote, manage and otherwise direct the operations of the LLC. Generally, the lien of a charging order does not intrude upon the noneconomic interests of the member. The question, ultimately, is whether a charging order is the exclusive remedy for a creditor regarding an LLC. That is, under current Indiana law can a creditor seek to obtain greater leverage by levying upon the noneconomic nature of a member’s interest? The answer as Indiana law currently stands is: it depends. And what this determination usually depends upon is whether one is dealing with an MMLLC or an SMLLC.

This determination is, obviously, of extreme importance to other members of an MMLLC in that, if a charging order is not the exclusive remedy, other remedies available to a creditor of a member can wreak utter havoc upon the viability of the LLC. That is, if a charging order is not the exclusive remedy, other options available to a judgment-creditor include (1) the right to foreclose upon a debtor-member’s interest as well as (2) an order of dissolution.

Foreclosure on a Member’s LLC Interest

In short, with an order of foreclosure, a judgment-creditor can foreclose on the debtor-member’s interests of the LLC, taking the interest in full or partial satisfaction of the debt. This, of course, turns a charging order into a much more powerful remedy. The creditor would not be limited to waiting for distributions that the LLC may never make. In foreclosure, the creditor could seize a member’s interests and possibly take control of a portion of ownership and/or management. This control could cause, for example, a forced distribution to the creditor in full or partial satisfaction of the debt. What is worse is the judgment-creditor gets the money while the member is left to pay the taxes on the distribution. Foreclosure could also result in the creditor selling the member’s interest in a public or private sale. One can easily see the turmoil this would cause in the LLC, especially with regard to its ownership and management.

Order of Dissolution

A third option for a judgment creditor is an order of dissolution. This would allow the creditor to force the LLC itself to be dissolved and its assets sold and/or otherwise applied to the satisfaction of the creditor’s judgment. This is the most draconian of remedies, resulting in an extreme hardship upon other members in an MMLLC who have absolutely no personal obligation for the debt. In the event of dissolution, the business would most likely be terminated and everyone tossed out, left to pick up the pieces the best that they can. Clearly, limiting creditors to a charging order is of extreme importance to members in an MMLLC.

What I.C. 23-18-6-7 Does Not Say and Interpretive Case Law

While I.C. 23-18-6-7 states that a judgment creditor may obtain a charging order, it does not state that a charging order is the exclusive remedy. The seminal case on this topic is Brant v. Krilich, 835 N.E.2d 582 (Ind. App. 2005). In Brant, the Court of Appeals definitively stated that a charging order is the exclusive remedy. However, the Brant decision does not provide all the answers, and there are several issues to still consider. As such, Brant should be applied with caution and after a thorough analysis.

One glaring issue is that, despite the ruling in Brant, I.C. 23-18-6-7 itself simply does not state that a charging order is the exclusive remedy. Moreover, while the Brant decision does so state, the facts under Brant dealt with an MMLLC. This disparity leaves open the question as to whether a charging order is truly the exclusive remedy as far as the Legislature is concerned and, in addition, whether it is the exclusive remedy with regard to SMLLCs.

House Bill 1394

Earlier this year in the 2013 legislative session, House Bill 1394 was introduced seeking to amend I.C. 23-18-6-7 to expressly provide that a charging order be the exclusive remedy. The bill sought to add language that “[a] creditor of a member or creditor of a member’s assignee does not have a right to obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable remedies with respect to, the property of the limited liability company.” Proposed (13) IN 1394.1.11(d). The proposed bill sought to further limit creditor’s rights by stating that a charging order under I.C. 23-18-6-7 would provide “the exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor of a member may satisfy a judgment from a judgment debtor’s member interest in a limited liability company. A judgment creditor has no right to foreclose upon the charging order or the judgment debtor’s member interest.” Proposed (13) IN 1394.1.11(e).

This change would have leveled the playing field between SMLLCs and MMLLCs, expressly adopted the Brant decision, and extended Brant’s reach to SMLLCs. However, under pressure from the creditor’s bar, the Legislature failed to adopt the proposed amendment and the statute remains unchanged. Thus, at the end of the day, it appears that Brant provides members in an MMLLC with some protection … for now. However, the courts are always free to revisit or distinguish Brant and reliance upon it in the formation of an MMLLC would seem somewhat speculative. Brant notwithstanding, it is open for interpretation as to what rights a creditor has against a member of an SMLLC. I would suggest that, under the totality of the circumstances, and the practicalities of the differences between an SMLLC and an MMLLC, SMLLCs are not going to be limited to a charging order and Brant has little, if any, applicability toward SMLLCs.

The Practicalities and Document Drafting

Given the gravity of the issue and the risk of a change in the law, the question is really what can an MMLLC do to more fully protect its members. As mentioned, in an SMLLC, perhaps nothing. The reasoning is that with regard to an SMLLC, there are no “innocent” members to protect. That notwithstanding, an operating agreement similar to that used for an MMLLC wherein creditor’s rights are delineated and limited, may carry the day to protect a member in an SMLLC. The practical effects of such drafting in an SMLLC remain to be seen. Another possibility – and one that makes Indiana a less desirable place to incorporate – is to form the LLC under the laws of a state that does recognize a charging order as the exclusive remedy.

However, with regard to MMLLCs, a well-drafted operating agreement clearly is of crucial importance. The operating agreement of an MMLLC can and should address this reality, despite the Brant decision. The operating agreement should delineate exactly what happens to a member’s interests in the MMLLC if a creditor seeks the remedy of a charging order or, worse, a remedy beyond a charging order. It should also address the situation where a member is forced to file for bankruptcy protection.

The means to accomplish this end are innumerable. There can be forced disassociation of the member, first rights of refusal to the other members to purchase the member’s interest, and so forth. In the end, the operating agreement must set forth a clear understanding between the parties upon formation of the LLC and close the gap between the current Indiana statute, the Brant decision, and the risk of a change in the law either by the Legislature or the courts. Furthermore, litigators need to be aware of the rights and remedies of both creditors and members when these situations arise and the arguments and tactics to best assert our client’s position, regardless of which side of the “v” we represent.•

Jason M. Massaro is the owner of The Massaro Legal Group, LLC located in Fishers, Indiana, where he focuses his practice primarily in complex civil, business, and real estate law and litigation. Mr. Massaro is a member of the DTCI Business Law Section. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  2. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

  3. They say it was a court error, however they fail to mention A.R. was on the run from the law and was hiding. Thus why she didn't receive anything from her public defender. Step mom is filing again for adoption of the two boys she has raised. A.R. is a criminal with a serious heroin addiction. She filed this appeal MORE than 30 days after the final decision was made from prison. Report all the facts not just some.

  4. Hysteria? Really Ben? Tell the young lady reported on in the link below that worrying about the sexualizing of our children is mere hysteria. Such thinking is common in the Royal Order of Jesters and other running sex vacays in Thailand or Brazil ... like Indy's Jared Fogle. Those tempted to call such concerns mere histronics need to think on this: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-12-year-old-girl-live-streamed-her-suicide-it-took-two-weeks-for-facebook-to-take-the-video-down/ar-AAlT8ka?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp

  5. This is happening so much. Even in 2016.2017. I hope the father sue for civil rights violation. I hope he sue as more are doing and even without a lawyer as pro-se, he got a good one here. God bless him.

ADVERTISEMENT