The full 50-state charging order strength matrix. Each row lists statutory cite, case law trigger, and whether single-member LLCs are explicitly protected. Use this for asset-protection planning across jurisdictions.
Use the search/sort in the live tool, or scroll the snapshot below.
Each entry cites the state code section and summarizes the COP scope (exclusive remedy vs available remedy).
Wyoming and Nevada explicitly extend COP to single-member LLCs. Other strong-COP states left this ambiguous. Florida (Olmstead, 2010) explicitly denied SMLLC protection.
| State▲ | COP strength↕ | SMLLC protected?↕ | Score↕ | Statutory cite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama (AL) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Ala. Code § 10A-5A-5.03 |
| Alaska (AK) | Strong | Likely | 80 | AS 10.50.380 |
| Arizona (AZ) | Strong | Likely | 75 | ARS § 29-3503 |
| Arkansas (AR) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Ark. Code § 4-32-705 |
| California (CA) | Weak | Unsettled | 35 | Cal. Corp. Code § 17705.03 |
| Colorado (CO) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | C.R.S. § 7-80-703 |
| Connecticut (CT) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | C.G.S. § 34-259 |
| Delaware (DE) | Strong | Yes | 85 | 6 Del. C. § 18-703 |
| Florida (FL) | Weak | No | 25 | Fla. Stat. § 605.0503 (Olmstead, 2010) |
| Georgia (GA) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | O.C.G.A. § 14-11-504 |
| Hawaii (HI) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | HRS § 428-504 |
| Idaho (ID) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Idaho Code § 30-25-503 |
| Illinois (IL) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | 805 ILCS 180/30-20 |
| Indiana (IN) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Ind. Code § 23-18-6-7 |
| Iowa (IA) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Iowa Code § 489.503 |
| Kansas (KS) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | K.S.A. § 17-76,113 |
| Kentucky (KY) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | KRS § 275.260 |
| Louisiana (LA) | Weak | Unsettled | 40 | La. R.S. 12:1331 |
| Maine (ME) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | 31 MRSA § 1573 |
| Maryland (MD) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Md. Code Corp. & Assn. § 4A-607 |
| Massachusetts (MA) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C § 26 |
| Michigan (MI) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | MCL § 450.4507 |
| Minnesota (MN) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Minn. Stat. § 322C.0503 |
| Mississippi (MS) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Miss. Code § 79-29-703 |
| Missouri (MO) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 347.119 |
| Montana (MT) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | MCA § 35-8-705 |
| Nebraska (NE) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-141 |
| Nevada (NV) | Strongest | Yes | 100 | NRS 86.401 |
| New Hampshire (NH) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | RSA 304-C:122 |
| New Jersey (NJ) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | N.J. Stat. § 42:2C-43 |
| New Mexico (NM) | Strong | Unsettled | 70 | NMSA 53-19-35 |
| New York (NY) | Weak | Unsettled | 35 | NY LLCL § 607 |
| North Carolina (NC) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 57D-5-03 |
| North Dakota (ND) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | N.D.C.C. § 10-32.1-43 |
| Ohio (OH) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Ohio R.C. § 1706.343 |
| Oklahoma (OK) | Strong | Likely | 75 | 18 OS § 2034 |
| Oregon (OR) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | ORS § 63.259 |
| Pennsylvania (PA) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | 15 Pa.C.S. § 8853 |
| Rhode Island (RI) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16-37 |
| South Carolina (SC) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | S.C. Code § 33-44-504 |
| South Dakota (SD) | Strong | Likely | 80 | SDCL 47-34A-503 |
| Tennessee (TN) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Tenn. Code § 48-249-509 |
| Texas (TX) | Strong | Likely | 80 | Tex. Bus. Org. § 101.112 |
| Utah (UT) | Strong | Likely | 75 | Utah Code § 48-3a-503 |
| Vermont (VT) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | 11 V.S.A. § 4054 |
| Virginia (VA) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Va. Code § 13.1-1041.1 |
| Washington (WA) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | RCW § 25.15.256 |
| West Virginia (WV) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | W. Va. Code § 31B-5-504 |
| Wisconsin (WI) | Moderate | Unsettled | 55 | Wis. Stat. § 183.0703 |
| Wyoming (WY) | Strongest | Yes | 100 | WY Stat. § 17-29-503 |
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 lets a member's personal creditor collect only the distributions the LLC pays that member, without seizing the membership interest or reaching the LLC's assets. It is the primary shield between an owner's private debts and the business. Where a charging order is the exclusive remedy, the creditor cannot foreclose on the interest, force a sale, or take over management. The creditor waits for distributions that the LLC's manager controls, which is a weak position for the creditor and a strong one for the owner. The strength of that protection varies by state, which is what this matrix maps. A member in a strong-remedy state keeps control of the entity even while a personal judgment is outstanding.
The tiers combine statute and case law. Strongest means the charging order is the exclusive remedy by statute and single-member LLCs are explicitly covered; Strong means an explicit exclusive-remedy statute; Moderate means a standard remedy without exclusivity; Weak means case law allows foreclosure. Wyoming and Nevada sit at Strongest because their statutes name the charging order as the sole remedy and reach single-member LLCs by name. Delaware, New Mexico, Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Texas hold Strong exclusive-remedy statutes. Weak states, including Florida after Olmstead, New York under its case law, and California for high-value cases, let creditors reach past the charging order. The tier reflects both what the statute says and how courts have applied it.
Read Strongest as the best footing for asset-protection planning, Strong as sound for most owners, Moderate as a charging order that leaves the door open to alternative remedies, and Weak as a state where courts have permitted foreclosure or reverse-veil-piercing. Single-member interest holders have the most at stake, because a single-member LLC is the structure Olmstead-line cases target. Those owners weight the Strongest tier most heavily when choosing a formation or holding state. The matrix is triage, not a legal opinion. A Moderate-tier home state does not doom an owner, and a Strongest-tier state does not guarantee an outcome, because choice-of-law analysis and the facts of a dispute still matter.
Wyoming and Nevada rank Strongest because each statute names the charging order as the exclusive creditor remedy and extends it by name to single-member LLCs. Wyoming's WY Stat. Ann. section 17-29-503 and Nevada's NRS 86.401 both bar foreclosure of the interest. That combination closes the two gaps that weaken other states: some states leave exclusivity implied rather than stated, and many left single-member coverage unsettled after Olmstead. Wyoming and Nevada state both points expressly. Both are also among the four truly anonymous states, so the same LLC that carries the strongest charging order remedy keeps members and managers off public records. Anonymousllc.co forms a Wyoming LLC for $397 all-in and a Nevada LLC for $722.
Olmstead v. Federal Trade Commission (Fla. 2010) held that a creditor of a single-member LLC may foreclose on the membership interest, functionally erasing charging order protection for single-member LLCs in Florida. The ruling reshaped planning nationwide. The court reasoned that the charging order's exclusivity, built to protect the other members of a multi-member LLC, had no one to protect in a single-member entity. That logic let the creditor reach the interest directly. After Olmstead, many states left single-member coverage unsettled, and a few carved single-member LLCs out expressly. Wyoming and Nevada responded by naming single-member LLCs in their statutes, which is why single-member owners favor those two states.
Charging order protection blocks private judgment creditors, not the IRS. The IRS can levy on LLC distributions and, in the right facts, reach the entity itself, so the shield does not extend to federal tax debts. The protection is designed for the ordinary judgment creditor, a plaintiff who wins a lawsuit and holds a money judgment. Against that creditor, an exclusive-remedy state confines collection to distributions the manager controls. Federal tax liens operate under their own statutory powers that override state charging order rules. An owner with a federal tax exposure addresses it directly, because no state's LLC statute answers an IRS levy.
A holding LLC strategy operates the business in your home state while a holding LLC formed in a Strongest-tier state, Wyoming or Nevada, owns the membership interest. If a creditor attacks that interest, the strong state's charging order rules govern the remedy. The structure isolates outside liability. Multiple properties or operating entities sit under one holding LLC, so a judgment against one does not automatically reach the others, and the holding layer's exclusive-remedy statute protects the ownership interest. It adds cost and complexity, so it fits owners with several operations to separate or meaningful liability exposure. Anonymousllc.co forms each entity at $397 in Wyoming, and volume pricing applies when a structure uses several LLCs.
Yes. Many asset-protection structures form the holding LLC in Wyoming or Nevada while the owner lives and operates in another state. Non-residents of the US do the same, forming without an SSN or visa. Choice-of-law analysis still applies, so a home state's law can influence a dispute in some scenarios, which is why complex plans involve counsel. The formation state's statute governs the membership-interest remedy, and Wyoming and Nevada supply the strongest one. Anonymousllc.co handles the filing, EIN, operating agreement, and bank applications remotely, so an owner sets up a Wyoming or Nevada asset-protection structure from anywhere in 5-10 days end-to-end.
5-minute WhatsApp intake. 5-10 day turnaround.