Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 86 - LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANIES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.401 (2026)

Rights and remedies of creditor of member

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 86.401  Rights and remedies of creditor of member.

      1.  On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by any judgment creditor of a member, the court may charge the member’s interest with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment with interest. To the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee of the member’s interest.

      2.  This section:

      (a) Provides the exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor of a member or an assignee of a member may satisfy a judgment out of the member’s interest of the judgment debtor, whether the limited-liability company has one member or more than one member. No other remedy, including, without limitation, foreclosure on the member’s interest or a court order for directions, accounts and inquiries that the debtor or member might have made, is available to the judgment creditor attempting to satisfy the judgment out of the judgment debtor’s interest in the limited-liability company, and no other remedy may be ordered by a court.

      (b) Does not deprive any member of the benefit of any exemption applicable to his or her interest.

      (c) Does not supersede any written agreement between a member and a creditor if the written agreement does not conflict with the limited-liability company’s articles of organization or operating agreement.

      (Added to NRS by 1991, 1302; A 2001, 1393, 3199; 2003, 20th Special Session, 71; 2011, 2800)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2022 · leading case: Weddell v. H2O, INC., 271 P.3d 743 (Nev. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weddell v. H2O, INC., 271 P.3d 743 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 9× “In doing so, we determine the rights and remedies of a judgment creditor pursuant to NRS 86.401. We conclude that a judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee of the member’s interest, receiving only a share of the economic interests in a limited-liability company,…”
In re Tarkanian, 562 B.R. 424 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2014). · cites it 3× “But the Debtors also jointly argued that the repayment of $350,000 of loans by JAMD to Debtors is excluded by Section 522(o) because the FDIC could have enforced its judgment only by seeking a charging order against the Debtors’ interest in JAMD pursuant to NRS 86.401. See…”
Magnolia Fin. Grp., LLC v. Antos (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 3× “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.401 (1); Weddell v. H20, Inc.”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 4× “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 4× “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 4× “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 4× “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
Battistone Vs. Battistone (Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “" In response, respondent contends that NRCP 19 does not apply to post-judgment proceedings and relies on NRS 86.401 for the proposition that 1111 Financial did not need to be named as a party in order for respondent to obtain what was in essence a charging order against…”
Goodwin v. John (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to NRS 86.401, Judgment Creditor Julie Goodwin c/o 26 Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, as Judgment Creditor of Mathew John, has applied 27 1 Under Rule 201, the court can take judicial notice of “[p]ublic records and government documents available 1 || and…”
Becker, IV Vs. Becker, v. (nrap 5), 2015 NV 85 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “746(2)(c); see also NRS 86.401; Weddell v. H20, Inc., 128 Nev.”
Becker, IV Vs. Becker, v. (nrap 5), 2015 NV 85 (Nev. 2015). “746(1), who only has a right to the shareholder's economic interest in the corporation. NRS 78.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.401(1) — 7 cases
Weddell v. H2O, INC., 271 P.3d 743 (Nev. 2012). “In doing so, we determine the rights and remedies of a judgment creditor pursuant to NRS 86.401. We conclude that a judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee of the member’s interest, receiving only a share of the economic interests in a limited-liability company,…”
In re Tarkanian, 562 B.R. 424 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2014). “But the Debtors also jointly argued that the repayment of $350,000 of loans by JAMD to Debtors is excluded by Section 522(o) because the FDIC could have enforced its judgment only by seeking a charging order against the Debtors’ interest in JAMD pursuant to NRS 86.401. See…”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
Topol v. First Indep. Bank of Nev. C/W 60405/61342//63420 (Nev. 2014). “Topol, and Tami Topol (collectively, the Topols) argue that the district court erred in (1) impliedly concluding that Nevada law governed respondent First Independent Bank of Nevada's (FIBN) right to a deficiency judgment, (2) awarding the deficiency judgment to FIBN, and (3)…”
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.