Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 605.0702 (2025)

Grounds for judicial dissolution.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session Cite as: Fla. Stat. § 605.0702 (2025)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

605.0702 Grounds for judicial dissolution.—

(1) A circuit court may dissolve a limited liability company:

(a) In a proceeding by the Department of Legal Affairs if it is established that:

1. The limited liability company obtained its articles of organization through fraud; or

2. The limited liability company has continued to exceed or abuse the authority conferred upon it by law.

The enumeration in subparagraphs 1. and 2. of grounds for involuntary dissolution does not exclude actions or special proceedings by the Department of Legal Affairs or a state official for the annulment or dissolution of a limited liability company for other causes as provided in another law of this state.

(b) In a proceeding by a manager or member to dissolve the limited liability company if it is established that:

1. The conduct of all or substantially all of the company’s activities and affairs is unlawful;

2. It is not reasonably practicable to carry on the company’s activities and affairs in conformity with the articles of organization and the operating agreement;

3. The managers or members in control of the company have acted, are acting, or are reasonably expected to act in a manner that is illegal or fraudulent;

4. The limited liability company’s assets are being misappropriated or wasted, causing injury to the limited liability company, or in a proceeding by a member, causing injury to one or more of its members; or

5. The managers or the members of the limited liability company are deadlocked in the management of the limited liability company’s activities and affairs, the members are unable to break the deadlock, and irreparable injury to the limited liability company is threatened or being suffered.

(c) In a proceeding by the limited liability company to have its voluntary dissolution continued under court supervision.

(2)(a) If the managers or the members of the limited liability company are deadlocked in the management of the limited liability company’s activities and affairs, the members are unable to break the deadlock, and irreparable injury to the limited liability company is threatened or being suffered, if the operating agreement contains a deadlock sale provision that has been initiated before the time that the court determines that the grounds for judicial dissolution exist under subparagraph (1)(b)5., then such deadlock sale provision applies to the resolution of such deadlock instead of the court entering an order of judicial dissolution or an order directing the purchase of petitioner’s interest under s. 605.0706, so long as the provisions of such deadlock sale provision are thereafter initiated and effectuated in accordance with the terms of such deadlock sale provision or otherwise pursuant to an agreement of the members of the company.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term “deadlock sale provision” means a provision in an operating agreement which is or may be applicable in the event of a deadlock among the managers or the members of the limited liability company which the members of the company are unable to break and which provides for a deadlock breaking mechanism, including, but not limited to:

1. A redemption or a purchase and sale of interests;

2. A governance change, among or between members;

3. The sale of the company or all or substantially all of the assets of the company; or

4. A similar provision that, if initiated and effectuated, breaks the deadlock by causing the transfer of interests, a governance change, or the sale of all or substantially all of the company’s assets.

(3) A deadlock sale provision in an operating agreement which is not initiated and effectuated before the court enters an order of judicial dissolution under subparagraph (1)(b)5. or an order directing the purchase of petitioner’s interest under s. 605.0706, does not adversely affect the rights of members and managers to seek judicial dissolution under subparagraph (1)(b)5. or the rights of the company or one or more members to purchase the petitioner’s interest under s. 605.0706. The filing of an action for judicial dissolution on the grounds described in subparagraph (1)(b)5. or an election to purchase the petitioner’s interest under s. 605.0706, does not adversely affect the right of a member to initiate an available deadlock sale provision under the operating agreement or to enforce a member-initiated or an automatically-initiated deadlock sale provision if the deadlock sale provision is initiated and effectuated before the court enters an order of judicial dissolution under subparagraph (1)(b)5. or an order directing the purchase of petitioner’s interest under s. 605.0706.

History.—s. 2, ch. 2013-180; s. 251, ch. 2019-90; s. 73, ch. 2020-32.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2024 · leading case: Hanley v. Hanley

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hanley v. Hanley (2019) nysupct · cites it 8× “, pursuant to Articles 11 and 12 of the New York Business Corporation Law and/or the common law, and CDL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 605.0702 and/or the common law.”

Top Tracking System LLC v. Castellanos (2024) flsd · cites it 8× “See Fla. Stat. § 605.0702 (1)(b)(4). Alternatively, Defendants must establish that Top Tracking’s members are deadlocked in the management of its activities and affairs, that the members are unable to break the deadlock, and that irreparable injury to Top Tracking is threatened…”

Pro-Play Games, LLC v. Philippe Charles Roger (2024) fladistctapp “While Roger contends judicial dissolution of a limited liability company is not an arbitrable issue, he cites no authority for this contention other than the dissolution statute, section 605.0702(1), Florida Statutes, which expressly states: “A circuit court may dissolve a…”

— 605.0702(1) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.