Kentucky Court of Appeals Rules on Challenge to Charging Order
In
the decision rendered last Friday, the Kentucky Court of addressed the
propriety of a charging order issued against the interest of the judgment-debtor
in some eight different limited liability companies. Unfortunately, the Court
of Appeal seems to have rather glossed over the most interesting aspect of the
charge orders that were issued. Vance v. Spring Hill Signs, LLC, No.
2013-CA-001264-MR (Ky. App. April 10, 2015).
Spring Hill Signs held several judgments against Donna Vance. In an effort to collect thereon, Springhill
sought charging orders with respect to Vance’s interest in numerous LLCs. In addition, Spring Hill sought the
appointment of a receiver with respect to her interest in each of those
LLCs. While the charging orders were
issued, the trial court denied the request that a receiver be appointed.
Specifically, and most interestingly, the charging order provided that:
if any disbursements are made to other members, then a
corresponding disbursement for Donna Vance's share/interest must be made at the
same time.
Vance then brought this appeal, asserting that the charge in order
as I enter by the trial court “exceeded its authority and adjudicating the
rights of non-parties.” Slip op. at 4.
Initially, Spring Hill sought to avoid the appeal by arguing that
the entry of a charging order is not a final and appealable order. The Court of
Appeals rejected that argument and determined that an appeal could be taken
therefrom. Also, notwithstanding a
determination that the argument with respect to the validity of the charging
orders was not argued to the trial court and therefore could not be brought on
appeal, the Court of Appeals did go on to consider it.
Essentially,
as characterized by the Court of Appeals, it was:
[Vance’s] allegation that the trial court's charging order assumes
jurisdiction over those eight limited liability companies, which are not parties
to the action, when they restricted the method or means by which those limited
liability companies may make distributions to their members. Slip op. at 9.
Initially, the Court rejected this on the basis of a statue
recognized by Vance, it providing that an LLC is itself not a necessary party
to the application for a charge in order.
Note, however, that the opinion contains a typo in its reference to KRS §
275.260(2) as the controlling statute. Rather, it is KRS § 275.260(6) which
provides: “the [LLC] is not a necessary party to an application for a charging
order.”
Implicitly, the decision of the Court of Appeals was that the
charging order should be read narrowly to the effect that, if and to the extent
distributions are made, a distribution on Vance’s behalf, subject to diversion
pursuant to the entered charging order, must take place, and the LLC may not “bank”
the distributions that would otherwise go to her or otherwise make
disproportionate distributions. Pursuant
to that reading, the entered operating charging order did not impact the
internal affairs of the LLC or otherwise permit the holder of the charging
order to influence its management and affairs.
There is, however, an alternative reading of the charging order which,
again implicitly, seems to of been rejected. Under that alternative reading, the
LLC and its constituent members would be precluded from altering Vance’s
sharing ratio in the various companies during the pendency of the charging
order. Clearly such a charging order would
be invalid as it would intrude into the internal affairs of the LLC. Unfortunately the Court of Appeals did not
squarely address that question.
For a general review of the charging orders utilized in Kentucky's
LLC Act, the same statutory provisions as well appearing in Kentucky's partnership
and limited partnership acts, see Thomas E. Rutledge and Sarah Sloan Wilson, An Examination of the Charging Order under
Kentucky’s LLC and Partnership Acts (Part I), 99 Kentucky Law Journal Online 85 (2011); An Examination of the Charging Order under Kentucky’s LLC and
Partnership Acts (Part II), 99 Kentucky
Law Journal Online 107 (2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment