The New Reality of Single Member Limited Liability Companies (SMLLCs)
September 9, 2010
If you’re looking for a way to protect your assets from creditors and lawsuits you should consider creating a Limited Liability Company (LLC). An LLC is a business entity that combines the benefits of a business partnership and a corporation and protects your assets while still allowing you to retain control over them. Desirable characteristics of LLC include that it can be formed by a single member, does not have to have a business purpose, and does not require a separate tax return or annual filings to maintain its existence. LLCs can be a wonderful tool… but not all LLCs are created equal.
Arizona asset protection enjoys a competitive advantage over the laws of many other states because the drafters of the Arizona LLC law omitted creditor friendly portions of the Uniform Laws that allowed creditors to foreclose their charging order liens to realize on the underlying assets owned by the LLC. This puts Arizona LLCs among the country’s elite LLCs for asset protection. This enhanced protection is commonly known as the “charging order as the exclusive remedy,” and until recently was thought to be absolute in states like Arizona. However, this enhanced protection is now being eroded by developing case law, and even in an LLC-friendly state such as Arizona the yellow flag of caution must be out for a Single Member LLC (SMLLC) as protection of its assets from its member’s creditors.
The Battle Between Creditors and SMLLCs
In the 2003 Colorado bankruptcy case Ashley Albright, the Court allowed a bankruptcy trustee to stand in the shoes of the debtor and control the assets of the debtor’s SMLLC. First thought to be an aberration limited to its facts, in fact that decision was correctly decided and a warning to all SMLLCs. The true lesson of that case is stay out of bankruptcy court if you expect to protect the assets in a SMLLC because the bankruptcy trustee steps into the place of the debtor and can control the assets inside the SMLLC if there are no other members to protect.
Then in 2005, in an Arizona bankruptcy case case, In re Ehmann, a decision since vacated when the parties settled, Judge Haines articulated a theory that if a limited partner had a passive role in the governance of a family limited partnership, the bankruptcy trustee could under some circumstances succeed to the interest of the debtor limited partner, formulating a theory about the impact of the executory nature of the limited partnership interest. While not particularly interesting because it broke no new intellectual ground –the bankruptcy trustee always had that bundle of rights, the case is interesting and instructive because the general partner governed the limited partnership to the detriment of the bankruptcy trustee giving rise to a right to dissolve the partnership and reach the underlying assets, the case is nevertheless instructive. The case is important because it is the vanguard case signaling that the remedy of judicial dissolution can be used by creditors in a variety of circumstances where no other remedies exist.
The next important case is the recently published Florida Olmstead case where the Florida Supreme Court failed to decide the question certified to it by the Federal District Court about the remedies available against a SMLLC, but rather held that a charging order was not the exclusive remedy against a single member limited liability company because single member limited liability companies lacked other members whose interests needed to be protected.
The Florida Supreme Court refused to interpret the state statute and instead chose to fashion a remedy designed to protect creditors against artificial barriers in collection procedures.
It has been suggested elsewhere that a strict reading of exclusive remedy statutes (such as the one in Arizona) invites judicial activism to shape remedies as did the Florida Supreme Court which has now given it’s imprimatur to the creditor friendly theory.
Arizona-Specific SMLLCs
Although SMLLCs are good asset protection entities protecting a member’s other assets from claims by creditors of the SMLLC (commonly called inside out protection), even that protection is limited if the member has signed a guarantee or can be held directly responsible as the actor giving rise to the claim.
The importance of the omission in Arizona law of the right to foreclose the charging order means a judgment creditor is entitled to a lien against a member’s interest in an LLC, but the creditor is only entitled to receive distributions that would otherwise be made to the member. If the LLC makes no distributions, then the creditor receives nothing except the satisfaction of making life difficult for the debtor. In states that follow the Uniform Laws or have their version of the charging order statute, the creditor may foreclose its lien on the member’s interest and force its way into the governance of the LLC; this is not the case in Arizona.
In single member limited liability companies, this means the creditor may have an absolute right to distributions from the SMLLC, but the debtor retains control over the assets of the SMLLC and the timing of distributions. This is a most undesirable result from the point of view of the debtor.
What Does This Mean For You?
The battle will continue over the distinction between economic rights and governance rights in SMLLCs. How much deference to a plain reading of the statute can asset protectors expect from judges in cases with difficult fact patterns will continue to present a quandary to most. Practitioners have long argued peppercorn theories of additional members, but the modern genre of reverse piercing and judicial dissolution arguments in an increasingly hostile judicial environment require you to stand up and take notice rather than relying only on statutory constructions. It will be increasingly important that documents are well drafted in a state with favorable laws and that the ownership and governance provisions of your operating agreements be given particularly attention to achieve your specific goals. Most importantly specific facts must be analyzed because beginning with the best structure is the key to long term success.
If you think a custom crafted LLC will benefit you, give me a call.
Round Table Discussion: Estate Planning or Asset Protection?
August 27, 2010
A typical Thursday night finds me meeting with other lawyers and discussing ideas useful in our respective practices. Although always trying to find new ideas to help clients, these meetings, reminiscent of old style writer’s salons, are particularly useful because of the opportunity to exchange views in an open setting. No idea is too simple or outlandish and all opinions are welcome. It is a refreshing opportunity to be the one asking the stupid question and being amply rewarded with a wealth of knowledge and experience. The food and drink is usually good, but no match for the companionship.
Recently we were discussing provisions for naming and removing successor trustees and the differences between granting the right to trustees, protectors, and beneficiaries. I was particularly interested in what powers could be used in what situations with or without running afoul of grantor trust rules that cause assets in an irrevocable trust to be included in the taxable estate of the grantor or beneficiary.
These are important discussions, but often buried in the “black box” of our trusts because the clients lose interest after answering the questions of control, use, and taxes. My role is to understand the client’s intentions and providing the most flexible rules that still meet the client’s objectives.
Our discussions frequently involve the relatively new “decanting” power under Arizona law, which allows a trustee of an irrevocable trust to make a new trust and add or exclude beneficiaries under certain circumstances.
This evening the point was made that for asset protection purposes attorneys should ensure that there is a power to exclude beneficiaries, and the discussion then quickly turned to whether that was a power best granted to a trustee or a protector in the context of which office could best wield the power in conjunction with a beneficiary’s right to remove and replace the trustee or protector without inadvertently creating a general power of appointment—which would cause estate tax inclusion in the estate of the person wielding the power.
The flash of knowledge that struck me was that although the power to exclude beneficiaries was crucial to a thoughtful asset protection trust, it would almost certainly not sit well with most of my clients that their successor trustee could exclude their chosen beneficiaries, except under very limited circumstances.
That in turn led to the idea of how to design a trust which would grant the power, but include adequate guidelines as to when the power could be exercised, so as to enhance the protection beneficiaries will have from their creditors yet reassure the grantor that the power will not be used to subvert the client’s intentions.
The trusts I create contain many instances of this type of analysis to ensure that my clients are always on the leading edge of what is possible.
If you found this article interesting, please share it with a friend or make a comment. If you would like to find out more about purposeful planning, please call me.
7 Fatal Problems of Joint Accounts
April 21, 2010
When fewer than half of all adult Americans have estate plans, you must ask yourself: why? One answer is that many people think they have already taken care of how their assets will pass to their heirs through joint tenancy. Joint tenancy works well if nothing out of the ordinary exists or occurs; but there are many problems that may arise. Here are just 7 of the worst things that might happen if you use joint tenancy to pass your assets on to your heirs:
- No creditor protection is available when property passes by joint tenancy. Creditors come in many shapes and sizes these days. Jury verdicts in even the most common accidents easily exceed insurance limits. Aging survivors are more susceptible to lapses of concentration while driving or otherwise. All of the survivor’s assets are exposed to creditors when assets are in joint tenancy. A trust based plan can provide creditor protection to your spouse or your descendants. This valuable protection can not be purchased at any price if you miss this planning opportunity.
- Defeats an Estate Plan. Property in joint tenancy passes to the joint tenant even if your Will indicates a different result. Heirs other than the joint tenant get nothing. If the joint tenant tries to distribute property to other heirs there will be a gift tax consequence.
- No estate tax protection for post-death appreciation is available if joint tenancy is used. Although the asset will pass to your spouse estate tax free; upon the death of the survivor the entire estate is exposed to estate taxes and the tax exemption normally available to the first decedent will be lost. If your estate (including life insurance) is likely to exceed the Applicable Exclusion Amount (scheduled to return to only $1,000,000 in 2011) then you have unnecessarily benefitted the government at the expense of your descendants. However, if a “credit shelter” trust plan is utilized, the decedent’s estate, will escape taxation no matter how much it appreciates before the death of the surviving spouse.
- Reduced protection from accumulated capital gains. Individually owned or community property receives a “step up” basis to fair value at the date of death and your heirs can sell the property and pay no capital gains. If property is held as joint tenants, the joint tenant avoids probate, but receives the favorable “step up” basis treatment on only one-half of the property.
- Lack of control. A joint tenant has no control over what happens to the property after death. A surviving joint tenant can sell or transfer the property, or can pass it to the survivor’s choice of heirs, including subsequent spouses. Joint tenancy deprives you of the assurance that your property stays in your bloodline. Without any further planning, property owned by a surviving joint tenant will pass automatically to the heirs of the survivor. If the survivor’s heirs are not the same as the decedent’s heirs, an undesirable result may occur.
- Guarantees public probate proceedings. Although there will be no probate administration when the first joint tenant dies, then (unless the survivor creates a new plan) a public probate proceeding will be necessary to complete the transfer of the property upon the death of the survivor.
- May subject you to expensive and potentially devastating results. Joint tenancy property is fair game for your joint tenant’s creditors. Although you may have an opportunity to prove your property was placed into joint tenancy for convenience and that the property really does not belong to the debtor, you are exposed to the expense and uncertainty of litigation.
Don’t let any of these fatal problems befall your family. Call our office today to discuss other, more reliable options for passing on your assets.

