ARTICLE
30 November 2018

Garnishment Limits And Charging Orders

SK
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC

Contributor

In boardrooms and courtrooms, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC provides strategic legal counsel to clients in the Midwestern United States, across the country and around the world. Our attorneys are recognized among the best in their fields by Martindale-Hubbell, Best Lawyers in America and Benchmark Litigation. We build client relationships for the long haul, because succeeding at business is a marathon, not a sprint.
Most if not all charging order statutes provide that exemption laws appli­cable to the member's interest in the LLC remain available notwithstand­ing the charging order.
United States Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Most if not all charging order statutes provide that exemption laws appli¬cable to the member's interest in the LLC remain available notwithstand¬ing the charging order. There has been essentially no consideration of the effort of this language. It has been suggested that one effort of this language has been to apply federal and state garnishment limits on charging orders, a view recently adopted by one federal district court. As discussed below, this application is typically not appropriate.

In Alexander, the court held that a charging order against the distributions from a single member LLC to its sole member should be limited by the state law garnishment limit. Generally speaking, Arizona law limits a "garnishment" to 25% of the garnishee's "disposable earnings." "Earnings" are defined in Arizona as including "compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether those payments are called wages, salary, commission, bonus or otherwise." "Disposable earnings" are earnings less required Federal and state deductions. The Alexander court reasoned that the LLC's sole member "receives distributions equivalent to the LLC's annual income. These are provided as compensation for his personal services to [the SMLLC]. These distributions qualify as earnings and are protected by the personal property exemption." From there, the Alexander court limited the charging order to "25 percent of [the Defendant's] disposable earnings."

To read the full article clickhere

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More