1705.19 Rights of judgment creditor.

(A) If any judgment creditor of a member of a limited liability company applies to a court of common pleas to charge the membership interest of the member with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment with interest, the court may so charge the membership interest. To the extent the membership interest is so charged, the judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee of the membership interest as set forth in section 1705.18 of the Revised Code. Nothing in this chapter deprives a member of the member's statutory exemption.

(B) An order charging the membership interest of a member of a limited liability company is the sole and exclusive remedy that a judgment creditor may seek to satisfy a judgment against the membership interest of a member or a member's assignee.

(C) No creditor of a member of a limited liability company or a member's assignee shall have any right to obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable remedies with respect to, the property of the limited liability company.

(D) A limited liability company or one or more members of a limited liability company who are not subject to a charging order entered in favor of a judgment creditor may at any time pay to the judgment creditor the full amount then still due under the judgment and by that payment succeed to the rights of that judgment creditor.

Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.72, HB 48, §1, eff. 5/4/2012.

Effective Date: 07-01-1994; 10-12-2006


Committee Comment (2012)*

New divisions (B) and (C) have been added to state that a judgment creditor's sole and exclusive remedy with respect to a membership interest in a limited liability company is a charging order. The charging order is the only remedy, whether the membership interest is or is not evidenced by a certificate, or whether it is a membership interest of a single member limited liability company. New division (D) has been added to provide flexibility to the company and its members in dealing with a charging order against one of its members.

*Comments on 129th General Assembly, HB 48, from the Ohio State Bar Association Corporation Law Committee