Rate the charging order protection strength of any US state for asset-protection planning. Charging order is the standard creditor remedy against an LLC member's interest - strong states make it the exclusive remedy; weaker states allow foreclosure. Use the 50-state matrix below to triage candidate states.
Select up to four states to compare side by side. The tool returns each state's tier ranking - Strongest, Strong, Moderate, or Weak - along with the controlling statutory citation and any notable case law. The tiers reflect two things at once: whether the statute names the charging order as the exclusive creditor remedy, and whether courts in that state have permitted foreclosure of a membership interest despite the statute.
Single-member LLCs receive weaker protection in many states because charging order statutes were written to shield innocent co-members from a stranger creditor. With no co-members, that rationale disappears, and some courts allow foreclosure of the sole member's interest. The tool flags whether each candidate state explicitly extends charging order protection to single-member LLCs, which is the single most important variable for a solo owner.
The tool weights statutory clarity, case-law history, and single-member posture into a 0-100 score for each state, then ranks your candidates and surfaces the top three. A state scores high when the statute declares the charging order exclusive, no court has carved out an exception, and single-member interests are covered by name. Wyoming and Nevada sit at the top because they satisfy all three tests.
Check the anonymity filter to restrict the ranking to the four states that permit anonymous LLCs: Wyoming, New Mexico, Delaware, and Nevada. Asset protection and privacy are separate features, and only these four deliver both. Filtering narrows a 50-state matrix down to the handful of states that keep members off the public record while also giving the charging order real teeth.
3 of 5 selected. Click to add or remove.
| State | Strength | SMLLC protected? | Score | Statutory basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wyoming | Strongest | Yes | 100 | WY Stat. § 17-29-503 |
| Nevada | Strongest | Yes | 100 | NRS 86.401 |
| Delaware | Strong | Yes | 85 | 6 Del. C. § 18-703 |
Static snapshot pulled from current state filing fees, statutes, and pricing data. Updates when source data changes.
| State | Strength | SMLLC protected? | Statutory / case-law basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Moderate | Unsettled | Ala. Code § 10A-5A-5.03 - COP available; SMLLC protection limited |
| Alaska | Strong | Likely | AS 10.50.380 - COP exclusive remedy |
| Arizona | Strong | Likely | ARS § 29-3503 - COP exclusive remedy |
| Arkansas | Moderate | Unsettled | Ark. Code § 4-32-705 - COP available |
| California | Weak (case-law) | Unsettled | Cal. Corp. Code § 17705.03 - COP statutory but courts may compel reverse-veil-piercing remedies |
| Colorado | Moderate | Unsettled | C.R.S. § 7-80-703 - COP available; SMLLC carve-out by case law |
| Connecticut | Moderate | Unsettled | C.G.S. § 34-259 - COP available |
| Delaware | Strong | Yes | 6 Del. C. § 18-703 - COP exclusive; SMLLC question debated but case law favors COP |
| Florida | Weak (SMLLC) | No (Olmstead) | Fla. Stat. § 605.0503 - Olmstead v. FTC (2010) allows foreclosure of SMLLC interest |
| Georgia | Moderate | Unsettled | O.C.G.A. § 14-11-504 - COP available |
| Hawaii | Moderate | Unsettled | HRS § 428-504 - COP available |
| Idaho | Moderate | Unsettled | Idaho Code § 30-25-503 - COP available |
| Illinois | Moderate | Unsettled | 805 ILCS 180/30-20 - COP available |
| Indiana | Moderate | Unsettled | Ind. Code § 23-18-6-7 - COP available |
| Iowa | Moderate | Unsettled | Iowa Code § 489.503 - COP available |
| Kansas | Moderate | Unsettled | K.S.A. § 17-76,113 - COP available |
| Kentucky | Moderate | Unsettled | KRS § 275.260 - COP available |
| Louisiana | Weak | Unsettled | La. R.S. 12:1331 - COP available but courts may permit foreclosure |
| Maine | Moderate | Unsettled | 31 MRSA § 1573 - COP available |
| Maryland | Moderate | Unsettled | Md. Code Corp. & Assn. § 4A-607 - COP available |
| Massachusetts | Moderate | Unsettled | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C § 26 - COP available |
| Michigan | Moderate | Unsettled | MCL § 450.4507 - COP available |
| Minnesota | Moderate | Unsettled | Minn. Stat. § 322C.0503 - COP available |
| Mississippi | Moderate | Unsettled | Miss. Code § 79-29-703 - COP available |
| Missouri | Moderate | Unsettled | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 347.119 - COP available |
| Montana | Moderate | Unsettled | MCA § 35-8-705 - COP available |
| Nebraska | Moderate | Unsettled | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-141 - COP available |
| Nevada | Strongest | Yes | NRS 86.401 - COP exclusive remedy; explicitly covers single-member LLCs |
| New Hampshire | Moderate | Unsettled | RSA 304-C:122 - COP available |
| New Jersey | Moderate | Unsettled | N.J. Stat. § 42:2C-43 - COP available |
| New Mexico | Strong | Unsettled | NMSA 53-19-35 - COP remedy; no express SMLLC carve-out, statutory ambiguity |
| New York | Weak (case-law) | Unsettled | NY LLCL § 607 - COP available; foreclosure permitted in some cases |
| North Carolina | Moderate | Unsettled | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 57D-5-03 - COP available |
| North Dakota | Moderate | Unsettled | N.D.C.C. § 10-32.1-43 - COP available |
| Ohio | Moderate | Unsettled | Ohio R.C. § 1706.343 - COP available |
| Oklahoma | Strong | Likely | 18 OS § 2034 - COP statutory remedy; SMLLC application uncertain |
| Oregon | Moderate | Unsettled | ORS § 63.259 - COP available |
| Pennsylvania | Moderate | Unsettled | 15 Pa.C.S. § 8853 - COP available |
| Rhode Island | Moderate | Unsettled | R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16-37 - COP available |
| South Carolina | Moderate | Unsettled | S.C. Code § 33-44-504 - COP available |
| South Dakota | Strong | Likely | SDCL 47-34A-503 - COP exclusive remedy |
| Tennessee | Moderate | Unsettled | Tenn. Code § 48-249-509 - COP available |
| Texas | Strong | Likely | Tex. Bus. Org. § 101.112 - COP exclusive remedy |
| Utah | Strong | Likely | Utah Code § 48-3a-503 - COP statutory remedy |
| Vermont | Moderate | Unsettled | 11 V.S.A. § 4054 - COP available |
| Virginia | Moderate | Unsettled | Va. Code § 13.1-1041.1 - COP available |
| Washington | Moderate | Unsettled | RCW § 25.15.256 - COP available |
| West Virginia | Moderate | Unsettled | W. Va. Code § 31B-5-504 - COP available |
| Wisconsin | Moderate | Unsettled | Wis. Stat. § 183.0703 - COP available |
| Wyoming | Strongest | Yes | WY Stat. Ann. § 17-29-503 - COP exclusive remedy for SMLLC and MMLLC; no foreclosure |
Strength tiers reflect a combination of statute (whether COP is declared the exclusive creditor remedy) and case law (whether courts have permitted foreclosure of LLC interests). 'Strongest' = WY, NV. 'Strong' = explicit exclusive-remedy statute. 'Moderate' = standard ULLCA-derived COP. 'Weak' = case law allows foreclosure or alternative remedies. Not legal advice - confirm with counsel.
A charging order is a court order that redirects the distributions owed to a debtor-member toward that member's personal judgment creditor. In strong states it is the exclusive creditor remedy, so the creditor cannot seize or force a sale of the membership interest itself. The practical effect is a standoff. The creditor holds a lien on distributions but cannot vote the interest, cannot force the LLC to pay out, and cannot step into management. In weaker states, courts permit foreclosure, which hands the creditor the full membership interest and defeats the protection. The strength of a state comes down to whether its statute and its courts keep the charging order exclusive or let creditors reach past it.
Exclusive-remedy language is the difference between a charging order that holds and one that collapses. When a statute names the charging order the sole remedy, a creditor cannot ask a court to foreclose or order a sale. Without that language, a judge has room to grant a foreclosure or an alternative remedy, which strips the debtor of the interest. Wyoming (WY Stat. Ann. § 17-29-503), Nevada (NRS 86.401), Texas (Tex. Bus. Org. § 101.112), and a handful of others declare the charging order exclusive. States running standard ULLCA-derived statutes leave the door open, which is why the matrix ranks them Moderate rather than Strong.
Single-member LLCs get weaker protection because charging order statutes were built to shield co-members from a stranger creditor. With a single member, there are no co-members to protect, so some courts see no reason to block foreclosure. The leading example is Olmstead v. Federal Trade Commission (Florida, 2010), where the state supreme court allowed a creditor to foreclose on a single-member interest. Wyoming and Nevada closed this gap by statute, naming single-member LLCs in the exclusive-remedy language. Other strong-statute states left the single-member question unsettled, so a solo owner who wants certainty forms in a state that covers single-member LLCs by name.
No. Charging order protection guards the ownership interest from a member's personal creditor. It does not protect the assets held inside the LLC from the LLC's own creditors. These are two separate shields. Outside-liability protection, the charging order, stops a creditor who sued the owner personally from taking the LLC. Inside-liability protection, the standard liability shield, stops a creditor of the business from reaching the owner's personal assets. A real estate holding LLC in Wyoming uses both: the charging order keeps a member's lawsuit from reaching the property, and the liability shield keeps a tenant's lawsuit from reaching the member's home.
Charging order protection matters most for owners with outside-liability exposure: real estate holding LLCs, high-liability professions such as doctors, lawyers, and contractors, and high-net-worth founders separating business assets from personal risk. It matters less for an everyday operating business where the LLC itself is the asset at risk, because there the inside-liability shield does the work. The question to ask is which direction the threat runs. If a personal lawsuit against you would reach a valuable LLC, a strong charging order state protects that interest. If the risk is a business lawsuit reaching your personal assets, standard liability protection is what counts.
The state of formation governs the LLC's internal affairs, including the charging order remedy, but a court in your home state may apply its own law when it finds sufficient local nexus. This is a choice-of-law question, and it is why forming in Wyoming does not guarantee Wyoming law controls if you live and operate in a weaker state. Courts weigh where the LLC does business, where the members reside, and where the dispute arose. Serious asset-protection planning pairs a strong-state formation with legal counsel who structures the entity so the strong state's law has the best claim to apply.
5-minute WhatsApp intake. 5-10 day turnaround.