(1) This section provides the exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor of a
member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the
judgment debtor's limited liability company interest.
(2) On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by a judgment creditor of a
member or a member's assignee, a court may charge the judgment debtor's
interest in the limited liability company with payment of the unsatisfied amount
of the judgment. To the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the
rights of an assignee and shall have no right to participate in the management
or to cause the dissolution of the limited liability company. The court may
appoint a receiver of the share of the distributions due or to become due to the
judgment debtor in respect of the limited liability company interest and make all
other orders, directions, accounts, and inquiries the judgment debtor might
have made or which the circumstances of the case may require to give effect to
the charging order.
(3) A charging order constitutes a lien on and the right to receive distributions
made with respect to the judgment debtor's limited liability company interest. A
charging order does not of itself constitute an assignment of the limited liability
company interest.
(4) The court may order a foreclosure upon the limited liability company interest
subject to the charging order at any time. The purchaser of the limited liability
company interest at the foreclosure sale has the rights of an assignee. At any
time before foreclosure, the charged limited liability company interest may be
redeemed:
(a) By the judgment debtor;
(b) With property other than limited liability company property, by one (1) or
more of the other members; and
(c) With limited liability company property, by the limited liability company
with the consent of all members whose interest are not so charged.
(5) This section does not deprive a member or a member's assignee of the benefit
of any exemption laws applicable to the member's or assignee's limited liability
company interest.
(6) The limited liability company is not a necessary party to an application for a
charging order. Service of the charging order on a limited liability company may
be made by the court granting the charging order or as the court should
otherwise direct.
(7) This section does not apply to the enforcement of a judgment by a limited
liability company against a member of that company.
(8) This section does apply to the issuance of a charging order against the interest
of a member or assignee of a member of a foreign limited liability company.
Effective:June 29, 2017
History: Amended 2017 Ky. Acts ch. 193, sec. 13, effective June 29, 2017. --
Amended 2011 Ky. Acts ch. 29, sec. 23, effective June 8, 2011. -- Repealed and
reenacted 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 51, sec. 117, effective July 15, 2010; and amended
ch. 133, sec. 35, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 137,
sec. 117, effective June 26, 2007. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 341, sec. 35,
effective July 15, 1998. -- Created 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 389, sec. 52, effective July
15, 1994.
Legislative Research Commission Note (7/15/2010). This section was amended
by 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 133, and repealed and reenacted by 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 51.
Pursuant to Section 184 of Acts ch. 51, it was the intent of the General
Assembly that the repeal and reenactment not serve to void the amendment,
and these Acts do not appear to be in conflict; therefore, they have been
codified together.
Legislative Research Commission Note (7/15/2010). 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 51, sec.
183, provides, "The specific textual provisions of Sections 1 to 178 of this Act
which reflect amendments made to those sections by 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 137
shall be deemed effective as of June 26, 2007, and those provisions are hereby
made expressly retroactive to that date, with the remainder of the text of those
sections being unaffected by the provisions of this section."
Notes of Decisions
Big Sandy Co., L.P. v. Amercian Carbon Corp. (E.D. Ky. 2024).
· cites it 16× “In its entirety, the argument states, ACC objects to the Plaintiff’s motion as all of the affected entities are not registered in Kentucky and therefore not subject to KRS 275.260. ACC is an Indiana corporation, McCoy Elkhorn Coal, LLC (“MEC”) and Perry County Resources, LLC…”
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 15× “It provides: (1) This section provides the exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor’s limited liability company interest. (2) On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by a…”
Bus. Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Ultra Energy Resources, LLC (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2025).
· cites it 6× “§ 275.260(2). The Sale Motion and Proof of Claim confirm that the Chapter 7 Trustee and BAL only agreed to sell and purchase BAL’s collateral: a right to distributions from Ultra and nothing more.”
Vincent v. Anand (E.D. Ky. 2023).
· cites it 4× “KRS § 275.260. It provides that “the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor's limited liability company interest.”
Lindsey Ann Perkins v. Craig Randall Perkins (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“KRS 275.260(3)17 states a charging order “constitutes a 17 The charging orders in question are Indiana charging orders, but because we are determining the priority of the charging orders, and not challenging the validity of the charging orders, we apply Kentucky law.”
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“On June 15, 2022, pursuant to the provisions of KRS 275.260(4), Mattingly moved the circuit court for foreclosure of Stich’s interest in one of the limited liability companies by way of a judicial sale to be conducted by the Master Commissioner at public auction.”
JobsOhio v. Emkey Energy, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2025).
“30, 2024) (applying Kentucky’s charging order statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 275.260(3)); see Campbell, 2024-Ohio-308, ¶ 8 (the judgment creditor gains the right to receive distributions “to which the assignor would have been entitled”) (emphasis added); cf.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 275.260(1) — 1 case
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“It provides: (1) This section provides the exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor’s limited liability company interest. (2) On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by a…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 275.260(2) — 4 cases
Big Sandy Co., L.P. v. Amercian Carbon Corp. (E.D. Ky. 2024).
“In its entirety, the argument states, ACC objects to the Plaintiff’s motion as all of the affected entities are not registered in Kentucky and therefore not subject to KRS 275.260. ACC is an Indiana corporation, McCoy Elkhorn Coal, LLC (“MEC”) and Perry County Resources, LLC…”
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“It provides: (1) This section provides the exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor’s limited liability company interest. (2) On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by a…”
Vincent v. Anand (E.D. Ky. 2023).
“KRS § 275.260. It provides that “the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor's limited liability company interest.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 275.260(3) — 5 cases
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“It provides: (1) This section provides the exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor’s limited liability company interest. (2) On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by a…”
Lindsey Ann Perkins v. Craig Randall Perkins (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“KRS 275.260(3)17 states a charging order “constitutes a 17 The charging orders in question are Indiana charging orders, but because we are determining the priority of the charging orders, and not challenging the validity of the charging orders, we apply Kentucky law.”
Big Sandy Co., L.P. v. Amercian Carbon Corp. (E.D. Ky. 2024).
“In its entirety, the argument states, ACC objects to the Plaintiff’s motion as all of the affected entities are not registered in Kentucky and therefore not subject to KRS 275.260. ACC is an Indiana corporation, McCoy Elkhorn Coal, LLC (“MEC”) and Perry County Resources, LLC…”
JobsOhio v. Emkey Energy, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2025).
“30, 2024) (applying Kentucky’s charging order statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 275.260(3)); see Campbell, 2024-Ohio-308, ¶ 8 (the judgment creditor gains the right to receive distributions “to which the assignor would have been entitled”) (emphasis added); cf.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 275.260(4) — 3 cases
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“It provides: (1) This section provides the exclusive remedy by which the judgment creditor of a member or the assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the judgment debtor’s limited liability company interest. (2) On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by a…”
Kevin Stich v. Dale Mattingly (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“On June 15, 2022, pursuant to the provisions of KRS 275.260(4), Mattingly moved the circuit court for foreclosure of Stich’s interest in one of the limited liability companies by way of a judicial sale to be conducted by the Master Commissioner at public auction.”
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.