KEYTLaw Girl Featured in Phoenix New Times Story
On October24, 2011, the Phoenix New Times ran a nice story about Katie Leavitt and her blog Running on Happiness.
Alaska Asset Protection Trust Funded By Solvent Settlor Completely Fails To Protect Assets In Bankruptcy Against Future Creditors
Forbes: “In 2005, an Alaska resident, Mortensen, who was solvent and liquid at the time, settled a self-settled Alaska Domestic Asset Protection Trust (“DAPT” or “APT”) for his own benefit and the benefit of his heirs, and contributed a $60,000 piece of property to the trust, along with $80,000 in cash that was a gift from his mother. . . . the Mortensen opinion basically says that under Bankruptcy Code section 548(e), Asset Protection Trusts do not provide protection in bankruptcy for a period of at least 10 years from the date the Trust was settled, where a purpose of the trust was to protect the trust assets from creditors of the settlor/beneficiary.”
Nationally recognized Nevada domestic asset protection trust lawyer Steve Oshins says this about the Mortenson case:
” I have looked through the facts of the case carefully and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judge would have been crazy to have ruled differently than he did. Other than some subtle inner-issues regarding how the judge looked at the 10-year bankruptcy clawback, this case was really a non-issue for DAPTs. We all knew since 2005 that there’s a bankruptcy clawback. One of the reasons Bob and I are doing the teleseminar is to make sure the public doesn’t misinterpret the case as being meaningful. With the viral effect of the Internet, those who don’t do DAPTs could easily misinterpret this case. I think it is important for people to take note of what was done wrong in the case which is helpful because “what not to do” is a good training tool. “
Read “Trust Experts Say Judge Made “Bad Law” in Landmark Asset Protection Case,” which states:
“But trust companies that rely on asset protection as a selling point say the ruling is a fluke that won’t affect truly well-constructed vehicles of this type — and the estate planners who know most about the field agree. . . .’If there was ever an illustration of how extreme facts contradict the law, this might be it,’ says Wisconsin estate planner Bob Keebler. ‘The sky is not falling on domestic asset protection trusts,’ he says. ‘This is really not a surprise to anyone’.”
The case is Battley v. Mortensen, Adv. D.Alaska, No. A09-90036-DMD, May 26, 2011.
Can an Arizona LLC Become a PLLC & an Arizona PLLC Become an LLC?
Question: I have an Arizona LLC, but I want to change it to a professional LLC (a PLLC). Is it possible and how do I make the change?
Answer: Yes. An Arizona LLC can be converted to a PLLC and an Arizona PLLC can be converted to an LLC. You convert one type of LLC to the other type by filing an amendment to the Articles of Organization with the Arizona Corporation Commission and then publishing the name change in an ACC approved newspaper after the ACC approves the amendment. The Amendment to the Articles of Organization must be signed by a member of a member managed company or a manager of a manager managed company. The amendment to the Articles of Organization must satisfy the following requirements:
Converting from an LLC to a PLLC:
The Amendment to the Articles of Organization must contain the following provisions:
1. A statement of the new name of the company with the correct ending. Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-4102.B states:
“A limited liability company organized under a law of this state other than this Article may elect professional limited liability company status by amending its Articles of Organization pursuant to Section 29-3202 to comply with subsection A of this Section and with Section 29-4106.
2. Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-4106 states:
“The name of a professional limited liability company authorized to transact business in this state shall satisfy the requirements of Section 29-3112, except that the name shall contain the words “professional limited liability company” or the abbreviation “p.l.l.c.”, “p.l.c.”, “pllc” or “plc” in uppercase or lowercase letters.”
2. A statement that the company is a professional limited liability company.
3. A description of the professional service or services that the company is organized to provide.
Converting from a PLLC to an LLC:
The Amendment to the Articles of Organization must satisfy each of the following requirements:
1. It must contain a statement of the new name of the company with the correct ending.
2. It must remove the statement in the Articles of Organization that the company is a professional limited liability company.
3. It must remove the statement in the Articles of Organization that describes the professional service or services that the PLLC was organized to provide.
Read “What are the Differences Between an Arizona PLLC vs LLC?“
KEYTLaw has Video Testimonials from Satisfied LLC Clients
Today I added our first video testimonials on our LLC Testimonials page. Several people for whom I formed one or more Arizona LLCs explain why they hired me, what they liked about my service and that they would recommend my LLC formation services to their friends. If you are shopping for someone to form your Arizona LLC, you should watch one or more of the video testimonials.
P.S. If I formed your Arizona LLC and you would consent to let my videographer film your LLC testimonial, send an email message to me at [email protected].
How Do I Form an Arizona LLC without Disclosing My Name?
Question: I know that Arizona LLC law requires that the names and addresses of all members of a member managed Arizona limited liability company be disclosed in the Articles of Organization filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission. I also know that anybody who searches my LLC’s name or my name on the ACC’s website will find me and my LLC if I am named in the Articles of Organization. How can I form an Arizona LLC without disclosing that I am the ultimate owner of the LLC?
Answer: The cheapest and easier way to form an Arizona LLC without disclosing your name and address is to have your trust own the membership interest in the LLC instead of you. For this to work, two requirements must be satisfied:
- The name of the trust must not include your name or anything that would tie the trust to you.
- In the LLC’s Articles of Organization you name the trust as the member or manager and do not put your name in the document.
You should not put an address in the Articles of Organization for the company, a member or a manager that is an address that somebody could tie to you. Instead, get a Post Office box or a UPS mailbox.
For more on this topic read my article called “The Confidential LLC – How to Form an Arizona LLC without Disclosing Its Ultimate Owner(s).”
How to Hire Richard Keyt to Prepare a Confidential Trust
If you want me to prepare a Confidential Trust for you, the simplest and least expensive way is to hire me to form your Arizona LLC ($597) and prepare the Confidential Trust for $297, a $200 discount off the $497 price charged if I do not form your LLC.
If you do not hire me to prepare your LLC and you want to hire me to prepare your Confidential Trust for $497, complete my online Confidential Trust Preparation Agreement then print, sign and deliver the signed agreement to me per the instructions on the last page of the form. You can pay online in our web store or call KEYTLaw legal assistant Michelle Watkins at 480-664-7413 and give her your information over the phone.
Arizona Corporation Commission Sues LLCs & their Members and Managers for Securities Fraud
The Arizona Corporation Commission sued multiple related Arizona limited liability companies and their members and managers for allegedly violating Arizona securities laws and defrauding many investors. The defendants in the Arizona Corporation Commission vs. Samuels lawsuit are Terry L. Samuels, Elizabeth Samuels, James F. Curcio, Jill L. Curcio, 3-CG, LLC, Choice Property Group, LLC, Azin Investor Group, LLC, Azin Investor Group II, LLC, Azin Investor Group III, LLC, Azin Investor Group IV, LLC, Combined Holdings IV, LLC and Combined Holdings V, LLC.
The Securities Division (“Division”) of the ACC alleged that the defendants engaged in acts, practices, and transactions that constituted violations of the Securities Act of Arizona, A.R.S. Section 44-1801 et seq.(the ‘Securities Act”). The Division alleged that Terry L. Samuels (“Samuels”) and/or James F. Curcio (“Curcio”) directly or indirectly controlled all entities named as defendants within the meaning of A.R.S. Section 44-1999 and that Samuels and/or Curcio are each jointly and severally liable with, and to the same extent as those entities, for the entities’ violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act. The spouses of Samuels and Curcio were named as defendants under A.R.S. Section 44-203 1 (C) solely for purposes of determining the liability of the marital communities.
The Division alleges that Samuels and Curcio and Arizona LLCs they created and owned offered and sold securities, including membership interests in the LLCs, without complying with Arizona’s Securities Act. The defendants allegedly misrepresented material facts and failed to disclose material facts when the solicited money from investors in connection with the entities’ fix and flip real estate business. The Division alleges:
Although SAMUELS formed additional, shell entities for the purpose of limiting liability, SAMUELS operated the Business’s entities as if they were a single company. For example, SAMUELS and his employees held meetings for the Business as a whole, not for each separate entity. Also, there were no written agreements between the entities.
The early investors were treated as lenders who received a promissory note and a deed of trust on an Arizona home to secure repayment of the loan. These notes were not registered as securities with the Division. The Division alleges:
“In the spring of 2007, SAMUELS and CURCIO shifted the Business’s strategy away from having investors select, invest in and receive as collateral an interest in a specific property in the form of a DOT with the investor as the beneficiary. The new strategy consisted of creating several limited liability companies (LLCs) that served as investor pools of approximately $lM each. The investors in these LLCs received LLC memberships in exchange for their investments. SAMUELS and CURCIO then pooled the funds received from these investors (collectively referred to as the “AZIN Investors”) and transferred the funds to CPG and/or 3-CG. Those entities then used these funds as determined by the Business’s managers, i.e. SAMUELS and CURCIO. The AZIN Investors did not participate in the selection of properties or management of the Business.”
“At or around the time they formed the first two AZIN Entities, SAMUELS and CURCIO began soliciting investors to purchase membership interests in the AZIN Entities (the “Membership Interests”). The Membership Interests were not registered as securities with the Commission to be offered or sold within or from Arizona.”
“SAMUELS and CURCIO solicited potential investors, in part, by conducting in person presentations to small groups of potential investors. These groups ranged in size from one
to about ten persons. SAMUELS and CURCIO held these presentations in several states including Arizona, Indiana and New York.”“SAMUELS and CURCIO provided potential investors with detailed brochures and newsletters (each a “Prospectus” and collectively the “Prospectuses”) that described the benefits of
investing in the Business, current investment opportunities, and the positive opportunities available to Respondents in the Phoenix-area real estate market.”“SAMUELS and CURCIO encouraged offerees and investors to re-direct their retirement accounts toward purchasing the Membership Interests. A Prospectus titled “3-CG News; Issue # 1 1-2008” provided by SAMUELS and CURCIO to existing and potential investors contained a section written by CURCIO titled “Jim’s Corner.” This section describes how investors could roll over their existing IRA/401(k) funds to purchase LLC memberships and that funds would be invested in a newly-formed LLC with the investor “listed on ‘Title’ to the properties as security” (quotation marks in original).”
“For all practical purposes, the AZIN Investors had no say in the management of the AZIN Entities. Under the terms of the Operating Agreement, the manager of each entity (CURCIO) had almost absolute control over the entity. Additionally, the AZIN Investors lacked experience in real estate investment and management. Thus, they could not have effectively managed the AZIN Entities even if they had any authority to do so.”
“In connection with the offer or sale of securities within or from Arizona, Respondents iirectly or indirectly: (i) employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements if material fact or omitted to state material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements nade not misleading in light of the circumstances under which they were made; or (iii) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business that operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon offerees and investors.”
“SAMUELS and/or CURCIO directly or indirectly controlled respondents 3-CG, CPG, and the AZIN Entities within the meaning of A.R.S. 6 44-1999. As a result, SAMUELS and/or
CURCIO are jointly and severally liable with, and to the same extent as 3-CG, CPG and the AZIN Entities for their violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act set forth above.”
The lesson to be learned from the case is that the offer and sale of membership interests in a limited liability company can be the offer and sale of securities that must be done in a way that satisfies federal and state securities laws. If your LLC or corporation intends to take any action that solicits money from a person or entity and says to the investor in effect “sit back on your couch and we will make a profit from your investment” then your LLC will be offering to sell a security. Before offerring or selling a membership interest in an LLC that is a security you should consult with an experienced securities law attorney and do what must be done to comply with federal securities laws and the securities laws of each state in which an investor resides.
EEOC Files Second Lawsuit against Phoenix-based Casey Jones Grill
Phoenix Business Journal: “The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed its second lawsuit against Phoenix bar and restaurant Casey Jones Grill, on allegations of sexual harassment of female servers. The restaurant is operated by Los Muchachos LLC.“
Can a Single Member LLC be Taxed as a Partnership?
Question: Can a single member limited liability company be taxed as a partnership for federal income tax purposes?
Answer: No. The following text from the IRS’ website answers the question:
“Over the years, there has been confusion regarding Single Member Limited Liability Companies in general and specifically, how they can report and pay employment taxes.
An LLC is an entity created by state statute. The IRS uses tax entity classification, which allows the LLC to be taxed as a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor, depending on elections made by the LLC and the number of members. An LLC is always classified under federal law as one of these types of taxable entities.
A multi-member LLC can be either a partnership or a corporation, including an S corporation. To be treated as a corporation, an LLC has to file Form Form 8832, Entity Classification Election (PDF), and elect to be taxed as a corporation. A multi-member LLC that does not so elect will be classified under federal law as a partnership.
A single member LLC (SMLLC) can be either a corporation or a single member “disregarded entity.” Again, to be treated under federal law as a corporation, the SMLLC has to file Form 8832 and elect to be classified as a corporation. An SMLLC that does not elect to be a corporation will be classified by the existing federal guidance as a “disregarded entity” which is taxed as a sole proprietor for income tax purposes.”
IRS Form 8832 is the form used by an entity to elect a method of federal income taxation that is different from the IRS’ default method (sole proprietorship or disregarded entity for single members LLCs and partnership for multi-member LLCs). This form is also known as the “check the box” form because an entity can elect a tax method by checking the box on the form. IRS Form 8832, question 3 reads:
“Does the eligible entity have more than one owner?
Yes. You can elect to be classified as a partnership or an association taxable as a corporation.
No. You can elect to be classified as an association taxable as a corporation or to be disregarded as a separate entity.”
See the IRS article called “Single Member Limited Liability Companies.”
Arizona Jury Gives Volunteer Worker Injured in a Fall from a Ladder $5.9 Million
Phoenix Business Journal: “A Maricopa County jury has awarded $5.9 million to a Valley man who suffered brain and severe back injuries after falling 10-feet off of a ladder while helping build a church roof in Rocky Point, Mexico.” The plaintiff was Ronald Day who sued the Central Christian Church and Amor Ministries. See “Valley church wants new trial after $5.9M verdict in volunteer fall case.”
This case is a perfect example of why people need to operate a business or own investment real estate in an entity that protects the owners of the entity from things that go wrong. If you are doing fix and flips without the protection of a limited liability company, you will be the defendant in the lawsuit if a worker gets hurt on the job and all of your life savings will be at risk.
This case is also a perfect example of why you should not rely solely on insurance, including an umbrella policy, as your only line of defense if something goes wrong. A lot of people acquire a $5 million dollar umbrella policy, but if the judgment is $5.9 million, you have a $900,000 problem. Insurance should be your first line of defense, but the LLC is the second line of defense.
Things happen so you need to form your LLC before the worker falls from the ladder or causes the car accident.
EEOC Sues Outback Steakhouse over Firing of Brain-injured Waiter
In September of 2011 the Phoenix office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a Phoenix area Outback Steakhouse restaurant for allegedly firing a waiter because of his disability, a traumatic brain injury that has slowed his thinking, impaired his speech and causes him to wear prism glasses. The EEOC claims the employer violated the Americans with Disability Act.
A protected person who believes he or she has been the victim of an employer who violated the ADA may file a complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC then becomes the alleged victim’s knight in shining armor who spends federal time, money and resources to take action against the employer who allegedly violated the ADA. Even if the employer has the law and the facts on its side, the employer has to make a choice between negotiating the best settlement possible or spending $50,000 or more on attorneys fees defending a lawsuit.
The ADA is a trial lawyer’s dream and an employer’s nightmare. It is also a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. This federal law was intended to protect employees who have disabilities from being fired. The law may accomplish that purpose in some cases, but it has also had the unintended consequence of making it much more difficult for handicapped people to obtain a job. Employers know that the risk of being sued by an employee is off the charts if they hire a handicapped person so they rarely hire the handicapped. Read “The Unintended Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” which states:
“The employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) exemplify the law of unintended consequences because those provisions have harmed the intended beneficiaries of the Act, not helped them. ada was enacted to remove barriers to employment of people with disabilities by banning discrimination and requiring employers to accommodate disabilities (e.g., by providing a magnified computer screen for a vision-impaired person). However, studies of the consequences of the employment provisions of ada show that the Act has led to less employment of disabled workers.
Why has ADA harmed its intended beneficiaries? The added cost of employing disabled workers to comply with the accommodation mandate of ada has made those workers relatively unattractive to firms. Moreover, the threats of prosecution by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and litigation by disabled workers, both of which were to have deterred firms from shedding their disabled workforce, have in fact led firms to avoid hiring some disabled workers in the first place.”
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.
Title I of the ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from the full range of employment-related opportunities available to others. For example, it prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities, and other privileges of employment. It restricts questions that can be asked about an applicant’s disability before a job offer is made, and it requires that employers make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it results in undue hardship.
The Obama administration’s EEOC recently filed a lawsuit that illustrates the absurdity of the ADA. The EEOC sued Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. because it refused to allow a recovering alcoholic to drive any of its 18 wheeled commercial trucks. Consider the employer’s dilemma: does it take the risk and allow a recovering alcoholic to drive its vehicles and possibly drink and drive and cause an accident that kills or injures somebody or does it risk a lawsuit from the employee and the EEOC? What would you do? Do we really want federal law and the federal government putting drivers who drink on the road to kill and maim?
Read “Trucking Companies Told to Hire Alcoholics by Obama Administration.” It’s only a matter of time before the EEOC sues an airline because it won’t let a recovering alcoholic fly an airliner with 300 passengers.
The ADA and the EEOC are examples of why all businesses that have employees should operate through an entity like a limited liability company that protects the owner’s life savings against debts and liabilities of the business.
For more on the ADA, read the EEOC’s “A Guide to Disability Rights Law” and “A Primer for Small Business.”
See “John Woods, Brain-Injured Former Umpire, was Wrongfully Fired by Outback Steakhouse, Says EEOC Complaint; Claims by the Disabled on Rise” and “EEOC Sues Outback Steakhouse over Firing of Brain-injured Waiter.” For more about Mr. Woods and his injury read “Umpire making a comeback on and off the baseball field” and a lengthy story in the Arizona Republic called “Phoenix umpire perseveres after near-fatal crash.”
Nevada Attorney Steve Oshins Discusses Nevada’s New Law that Protects Single Member LLCs
Provident Trust: “Steve Oshins is a nationally acclaimed estate planning and asset protection attorney . . . renowned for his efforts at providing innovative solutions for the asset protection concerns of clients. He has played a unique role in designing legislation that has made Nevada a leading trust and asset protection jurisdiction. According to Forbes Magazine, Nevada has the most favorable asset protection trust laws of any state in the country. Recently, Mr. Oshins was instrumental in the drafting of the part of Senate Bill 405, signed into law on June 16, 2011, that specifies charging order protection as the exclusive remedy for creditors of a debtor who is the sole member of a single member limited liability company (SMLLC).”
Do Single Member LLCs Provide any Asset Protection?
Question: Some people, including some lawyers, say that a single member limited liability company does not give the member/owner any asset protection. Is that true?
Answer: No. People say this to me all the time. I also see a lot of articles on the internet that make the same erroneous statement. I even know of lawyers who spread this myth.
People who claim single member LLCs do not provide any asset protection are ignorant of both asset protection law and LLC law. If a person or entity forms a single member Arizona LLC to operate a business or to own investment real estate and if the LLC is operated in compliance with applicable laws, the LLC gives its owner the same protection from the LLC’s debts and obligations that Arizona law gives to multi-member LLCs and single shareholder corporations.
Example 1: Homer Simpson forms an Arizona LLC and owns it as his sole and separate property. He is the only member. Homer writes a check to the LLC for $50,000 that the LLC uses to buy a rental home. The tenant’s mother slips on stairs in the home and dies. Victim’s family sues the LLC and Homer and attempts to pierce the company veil and hold both the LLC and Homer liable for the family’s damages. If Homer’s LLC has complied with applicable laws and if Homer did not have anything to do with causing or knowing of the problem with the stairs, Arizona law should protect Homer from any judgment rendered against the LLC that owns the home. If you think this example is ridiculous, see Kerege v. Viscount Hotel Suite, one of the ten largest Arizona jury awards in 2010 that involved an elderly woman who fell down carpeted stairs in a hotel atrium and died. The jury awarded the plaintiff $3,000,000.
I am not aware of any Arizona court case that has found the owner of a single member Arizona LLC liable under the fact pattern described above. If you know of such a case, please send it to me.
I am not saying that the owner of a single member LLC cannot be liable for causing harm in connection with the LLC’s activities. Never forget this important fact of life:
A person is always liable for harm caused by the person’s acts or omissions even if the acts or omissions arise while acting on behalf of a limited liability company.
Example 2: Same facts as in Example 1 above except Homer installed the carpeting on the stairs and his installation made a bump on the stairs that caused the tenant’s mother to trip when her foot hit the bump. Homer’s botched installation job caused the accident so he will be liable for the harm he caused and so will the LLC because he was acting on behalf of the LLC when he installed the carpet.
The result in Example 2 does not mean that a single member LLC does not provide any asset protection. Homer would not have escaped liability for causing the accident if the LLC had been a multi-member LLC. The number of members of the LLC is irrelevant in this scenario because Homer’s liability arises because of his bad act.
What is the Source of this Myth?
The reason some people mistakenly claim the single member LLC does not offer any asset protection arises from a misunderstanding of the legal implications of a famous (in LLC lawyer circles) bankruptcy case called “In re Albright,” No. 01-11367 (Colo. Bkrpt. April 4, 2003). This case involved a woman who was the only member of an LLC that had assets. She argued that the bankruptcy court could not give the assets of the LLC to her creditors because Colorado LLC law provided that the creditors’ remedy for claims against its sole member was a charging order. The bankruptcy court rejected that argument and allowed the bankruptcy trustee to sell the LLC’s assets and give the proceeds to Albright’s creditors.
The court made some statements that it may not have liquidated the LLC if it had multiple members. It said:
“To the extent a debtor intends to hinder, delay or defraud creditors through a multi-member LLC with ‘peppercorn’ co-members, bankruptcy avoidance provisions and fraudulent transfer law would provide creditors or a bankruptcy trustee with recourse.”
This off the cuff statement (called “dictum”*) are the basis on which the nonbelievers claim that single member LLCs do not provide any asset protection.
*Latin for “remark,” a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis for judgment. The standard counter argument is: “it is only dictum (or dicta).”
The Albright case did not involve a claim made against the LLC that arose from the LLC’s activities. I call this type of claim a bottom up creditor claim. Instead, the Albright case involved claims MADE AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER ARISING FROM THE MEMBER’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS. IT DID NOT INVOLVE A CLAIM THAT AROSE FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE LLC AND AN ATTEMPT BY THE CREDITOR TO PIERCE THE VEIL AND HOLD THE SOLE MEMBER LIABLE FOR THE DEBTS OF THE LLC. See my graphical depiction of bottom up and top down creditors.
It takes quite a leap of ignorant faith to conclude from In re Albright that it stands for the proposition that single member LLCs lack asset protection. Nationally known asset protection attorney Jay Adkinson says the following about single member LLCs, In re Albright and asset protection on his great website called “Asset Protection Book:”
“Based on Albright, sometimes I hear planners blurt out, “Single Member LLCs provide no asset protection!” This is wrong. The lack of charging order protection is a far cry from concluding that SMLLCs are “worthless” as asset protection vehicles. SMLLCs may still provide substantial protection for owners against the liabilities of the entity itself, which are so-called “internal liabilities”.
For example: SMLLC owns a strip mall and is successfully sued by one of the tenants. If the SMLLC is adequately capitalized, is not the alter ego of the sole member, and is not used to perpetuate a fraud, the tenant may not assert liability against the member.
There is no reason that a SMLLC should be treated much differently from a sole shareholder corporation. Historically, sole shareholder corporations have contained liability within the entity and shielded the liability away from its owners.
To summarize, even if SMLLCs do not offer the same charging order protection as multiple-member LLCs, they can still be very valuable business planning vehicles. Certainly, it is preferable from a liability standpoint to own one’s business in a SMLLC than to run it as a sole proprietorship. But of course, where external liability is a concern and it is feasible to add another member, that should be done so that charging order protection arises.”
To learn more about this topic and attacks by creditors on the charging order protection offered by LLC laws in states outside Arizona, read my article called “Beware of the Single Member LLC.”
For People Who Want to Form an LLC Themselves
If you think you might want to create a do-it-yourself Arizona LLC you must read Arizona LLC attorney Richard Keyt’s article called “Step by Step Guide: How to Form Arizona LLC 2019 in (6 Easy Steps).”
How Much Compensation must an Entity Taxed as an S Corporation Pay to Owners to Keep the IRS Happy?
The Tax Advisor: “S corporation shareholders [and owners of LLCs taxed as S corporations] generally prefer dividend distributions of their S corporations’ [or LLC’s] profits over compensation payments from the S corporations [LLCs] because the compensation payments are subject to payroll taxes and dividend distributions are not. To prevent S corporations and their shareholders from avoiding payroll taxes by maximizing distributions and minimizing compensation payments, the IRS requires S corporations to pay shareholders who provide substantial services reasonable compensation. Disputes between the IRS and taxpayers have required courts to determine on a regular basis whether an S corporation has paid reasonable compensation to its shareholder(s).
Stupid New Arizona Notary Law Creates a Legal Nightmare for Attorneys, Notaries & the Public
The “we are from the government and are here to help you” people in the Arizona legislature passed a terrible law that became effective in Arizona on July 20, 2011. Arizona Senate Bill 1230 added new and outrageous notary requirements that will affect all documents notarized by an Arizona notary after July 19, 2011. The new law will invalidate tens of thousands of documents notarized by Arizona notaries because of ignorance of the law and simple mistakes.
The new law added the following provisions to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-313:
B. Notaries public shall perform the notarial acts prescribed in subsection A of this section only if:
1. The signer is in the presence of the notary at the time of notarization.
2. The signer signs in a language that the notary understands.
3. Subject to subsection D, the signer communicates directly with the notary in a language they both understand or indirectly through a translator who is physically present with the signer and notary at the time of the notarization and communicates directly with the signer and the notary in languages the translator understands.
4. The notarial certificate is worded and completed using only letters, characters and a language that are read, written and understood by the notary public.
C. If a notary attaches a notarial certificate to a document using a separate sheet of paper, the attachment must contain a description of the document that includes at a minimum the title or type of document, the document date, the number of pages of the document and any additional signers other than those named in the notarial certificate.
D. A notary may perform a notarial act on a document that is a translation of a document that is in a language that the notary does not understand only if the person performing the translation signs an affidavit containing an oath or affirmation that the translation is accurate and complete. The notarized translation and affidavit shall be attached to the document and shall contain all of the elements described in subsection C.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-328 was amended by adding the following text:
C. Subject to section 41-320, a notary public shall not perform a notarization on a document if the notary is an officer of any named party, if the notary is a party to the document or if the notary will receive any direct material benefit from the transaction that is evidenced by the notarized document that exceeds in value the fees prescribed pursuant to section 41-316.
Problems Created by Revised ARS Section 41-313
What Does “a notary attaches a notarial certificate to a document” Mean?
The new law is a time bomb for anybody who creates, signs or notarizes documents that are notarized by an Arizona notary. For example, what does “If a notary attaches a notarial certificate to a document using a separate sheet of paper” mean? Consider the following scenarios and if the new language applies to any or all of them:
1. Attorney, document preparer or do-it-yourself person prints a document that has a notary certificate on the same page as the page on which the signer signed.
2. Attorney, document preparer or do-it-yourself person prints a document that has a notary certificate on a page that is not the page on which the signer signed.
3. Attorney, document preparer or do-it-yourself person creates a document that does not contain a notary certificate so the notary prepares his/her notary certificate on a separate piece of paper and attaches it to the end of the document.
4. Attorney, document preparer or do-it-yourself person creates a document that does not contain a notary certificate so the notary prepares his/her notary certificate on a separate piece of paper, but the attorney, document preparer or do-it-yourself person rather than the notary actually attaches the notary certificate to the end of the document.
5. The person who creates the document in scenarios 1 & 2 is also the notary who notarizes the document.
A literal reading of the statute would seem to require compliance with the new law only in the case of scenarios 3 & 5, but we will not know for sure until an Arizona appellate court tells us what this phrase means years from now.
Practical Tip #1: The notary certificate should contain a statement that the notary certificate was or was not attached to the document by the notary.
Practical Tip #2: If the notary is the same person who prepared the document, the document preparer should play it safe and assume that Section 41-313.C will apply and include the required information in the notary certificate.
Mistakes & Omissions in the Notary Certificate
This new notary law is a very bad law because it demands attention to detail and creates many opportunities for the document preparer and the notary to inadvertently invalidate a notarized document. The new law says that when it applies, the notary block must contain “the title or type of document, the document date, the number of pages of the document and any additional signers other than those named in the notarial certificate.” This new require gives the notary a lot of ways to create an incorrect notary certificate.
The new law does not give us any guidance on the legal significance of the notarized document if one or more of the following errors occurs in the notary certificate:
1. The title or type of document stated in the notary certificate is different from the actual title or type of document? For example, what if the title of the document is “Promissory Note,” but the notary certificate refers to a “Note”? What if the name or title is correct, but misspelled?
2. The document date is incorrect? What if the document date is off by one day, a month or the year is incorrect?
3. The number of pages in the document is incorrect? The new law does not tell us how we calculate the number of pages in a document. In counting the number of pages does the notary count a cover page, the pages in a table of contents and pages in schedules or exhibits? The document preparer, the signer and the notary should actually count all of the pages of the document because I do not recommend relying on the page numbers on the last page of the document.
4. The name of one or more additional signers is not spelled correctly.
5. An additional signer’s name is omitted?
Does this law create new liability for lawyers, especially estate planning lawyers whose practice involves many notarized documents? Apparently Arizona lawyers can now be sued years after a document was signed when the client or family is told the notary certificate failed to comply with Section 41-313 and therefore the document is invalid.
Practical Tip #3: In addition to stating how many pages are in the document, the notary certificate should “itemize” page numbers. For example, the notary certificate should say “The
[document name] is 25 pages consisting of a 1 page cover page, a 3 page table of contents, 19 pages of document text and a 2 page Exhibit A” or The [document name] consists of three pages and it does not have a cover page, a table of contents or any exhibits or schedules.”
The Law Should Cause all Arizona Notaries to Cease Providing Notary Services
As a practical matter, why would anybody want to be a notary in Arizona with this law? Aren’t all notaries now liable for damages if they fail to satisfy Section 41-313? If you are an Arizona notary, do you want to take the chance of being sued because a document you notarized fails to comply with Section 41-313.C? Can a notary get insurance for this type of liability? If so, what are the coverage limits?
Most notaries do not charge for their services, but they may. Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-316 states that “The secretary of state shall establish fees that notaries public may charge for notarial acts.” The Arizona Secretary of State’s rule R2-12-1102 allows Arizona notaries to charge as much as $2 for each notary. The compensation that an Arizona notary might receive for notarizing a document does not justify the risk of being sued for committing “notary malpractice.”
Tens of Thousands of Documents Will Be Invalid
Consider what this new law means for the tens of thousands of do-it-yourselfers who don’t have a clue about this law. There are going to be a lot of estate planning documents created by 99% of the public, including Arizona notaries, who will be clueless about the requirements of revised Section 41-313. The good news is that the vast majority of third parties who view a notarized document won’t know of Section 41-313 so they won’t question the validity of the document.
Bottom Line
This new law is a wonderful revenue generator for Arizona lawyers, especially estate planning lawyers like me. Every document notarized by an Arizona notary should be reviewed by an Arizona attorney who is experienced with Section 41-313. For example, nobody should ever create their own last Will & Testament without having it reviewed by an Arizona “notary law attorney” because the family will not know until after the signer dies that the Will is invalid.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section Section 41-313.C is a trial lawyers dream, but a nightmare for the unsuspecting public, lawyers and Arizona notaries.
Tell Your Arizona Legislators To Repeal or Fix This New Law
Senate Bill 1230 was sponsored by Republican Representative Michelle Reagan. Her contact information is: Phone Number: (602) 926-5828; Fax Number: (602) 417-3255; [email protected]. I suggest you send her a letter or email message alerting her to the problems with the new law and ask that she repeal or fix the new law. Do the same for your state senator or representative. See the names and contact information for Arizona senators and house members.
Lessons to be Learned from Sheriff Joe’s Bad Example
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his wife formed an Arizona limited liability company in December of 2010 called “Ava Investments, LLC.” In June of 2011 they transferred eight parcels of land into Ava Investments, LLC.
Apparently Joe and Ava were not concerned about confidentiality because their home address is listed in the Articles of Organization and on the Arizona Corporation Commission’s website as well as their names. I can’t fault Sheriff Joe, however because he didn’t have a chance to read my article called “The Confidential LLC – How to Form an Arizona LLC without Disclosing Its Ultimate Owner(s)” because the article was written after the Arpaios formed Ava Investments, LLC.
Lesson 1: If you want to keep your ownership of an Arizona limited liability company confidential and not on public display, do not be a member or manager of an Arizona LLC or use your home address for any purpose in the LLC’s Articles of Organization.
Apparently the purpose of Ava Investments, LLC, is to hold the Arpaio’s investment real estate. I searched the Maricopa County Recorder’s website for Ava Investments, LLC, and found the following deeds:
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 14, 2011, was signed by Joe and Ava as grantors conveying two parcels of land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Ava Investments Corporation, not Joe and Ava, (ii) the sales price was $75,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is for commercial or industrial use.” The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio who acknowledged that she was “duly sworn on oath . . . that the foregoing statement is a true and correct of the facts pertaining to the transfer of the above described property.” These two parcels are located at 10635 & 10637 North 71st Place, Scottsdale, Arizona. Problems: The price listed is $75,00, but the deed transferred two parcels. What is the price of each parcel? Is $75,000 the total price? Who was the seller? The deed was signed by the Arpaios, not Ava Investment Corporation. The Affidavit of Value states that the seller was the corporation. If the property is/was owned by the corporation then the deed signed by the Arpaios did not transfer the title to the LLC.
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 2011, was signed by Joe and Ava as grantors conveying land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Joe and Ava, (ii) the sales price was $60,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is for commercial or industrial use.” The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio. This property is located at 10614 North 71st Place, Scottsdale, Arizona.
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 2011, was signed by Ava Investment Corporation as grantor conveying land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Ava Investment Corporation, (ii) the sales price was $75,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is for commercial or industrial use.” The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio. This property is located at 10610 North 71st Place, Scottsdale, Arizona.
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 2011, was signed by Ava Investment Corporation as grantor conveying land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Ava Investment Corporation, (ii) the sales price was $325,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is for commercial or industrial use.” The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio. This property is located at 16733 East Palisades Blvd., Fountain Hills, Arizona.
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 2011, was signed by Joe and Ava as grantors conveying land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Joe and Ava, (ii) the sales price was $75,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is for commercial or industrial use.” The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio. This property is located at 10632 North 71st Place, Scottsdale, Arizona.
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 2011, was signed by Ava Investment Corporation as grantor conveying land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Ava Investment Corporation, (ii) the sales price was $325,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is a single family residence and used for commercial or industrial use.” Note: The Affidavit says to check only one box to indicate the type of property, but two boxes were checked. The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio. This property is located at 16743 East Palisades Blvd., Fountain Hills, Arizona.
- June 6, 2011, Special Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 2011, was signed by Joe and Ava as grantors conveying land to Ava Investments, LLC. The Affidavit of Value recorded with this deed says that: (i) the seller was Joe and Ava, (ii) the sales price was $60,000, (iii) the method of financing was “exchange or trade,” and (iv) the property is for commercial or industrial use.” The signature on the Affidavit appears to be that of Ava Arpaio. This property is located at 10630 North 71st Place, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Lesson 2: Diversity – do not put all of your eggs or assets in one basket. We all know what happens when you drop your basket, you lose all of your eggs or real estate if you have all of your real estate eggs in one basket. The Arpaios have 8 parcels of real property in one LLC. If somebody gets killed or injured on one property and there is a large lawsuit against the LLC, all the properties could be lost. For maximum asset protection, put each parcel of real estate in a separate LLC so in the worst case scenario, you only lose the equity you have in that one LLC. Do not put multiple parcels of valuable real estate in the same limited liability company because you could lose everything if something goes wrong with one of the properties. For more on this topic see my article called “How Many LLCs Should I Form for My Properties?“
The paper trail raises some interesting issues that everybody who transfers land into an LLC should consider before making the transfer.
Lesson 3. Always Consider Income Tax Consequences When Transferring Property. The total purchase price of all the properties stated on the Affidavits of Value is $995,000. The Affidavits of Value indicate that all the transfers involved an exchange or trade to satisfy the purchase price. Therefore the newly formed Ava Investments, LLC, must have been funded with property valued at $995,000 that was used to exchange or trade with the sellers of the properties. Did the Arpaios fund their LLC with a loan of property or make capital contributions of property valued at $995,000. If the latter, the LLC’s basis in the property would be a carry over basis. Would the exchange / trade be a taxable transaction? Income tax law (Internal Revenue Code Section 1031) does provide for tax-free exchanges of real estate for real estate, but not real estate for personal property or money. It is possible that one or more of the transactions could have created taxable events for buyer and seller. Hopefully the Arpaio’s consulted with an experienced tax advisor before they consummated the transfers and taken steps to eliminate or mimimize any adverse income tax consequences.
Lesson 4. Document & Track the Tax Basis of the Property Going into the LLC. The LLC should document the income tax basis of property it acquires so it can deduct the basis from any amount realized on a later sale of the property. If the LLC buys the property from the seller for its fair market value then the tax basis of the purchased property is the amount paid to acquire the property. If the property is contributed to the LLC by a member, the LLC takes the same tax basis in the property that the member had in the property.
Lesson 5. Document the Affect the Contribution of the Property to an LLC Has with respect to the Contributing Member’s Capital Account. This is especially important when the LLC is a multi-member LLC other than a two member husband and wife LLC. If a member contributes money or property to a multi-member LLC, the member’s capital account should be increased by the amount of money contributed or the value of the property contributed. This is an important concept for multi-member LLCs. Documenting or failing to document the value of members’ contributions added or not added to a their capital account has real economic consequences to the all the members. All of the members should sign a document in which they agree to the value of contributed property and the amount that will be added to the contributing member’s capital account. Think of a member’s capital account as similar to a bank account. If you contribute real estate to a multi-member LLC that has $50,000 of equity, you want your capital account to increase by $50,000 because for every dollar that does not get credited to your capital account you will lose $1 or real money at some time in the future.
Lesson 6. How Do You Determine Property Values? It is unusual for two parcels of real estate to have the same value. The purchase price of two of the parcels was $60,000, three parcels were priced at $75,000 and two were $325,000. What a co-inky-dink! How did the Arpaios determine the values of the properties?
Who Will Inherit Your LLC if You Die?
If you are a member of one or more LLCs, do you know who will inherit your membership interest if you die? If you do not prepare for your death and designate your heir(s) properly then the state where you live will determine who inherits your LLCs after you die after the LLC membership goes through a costly probate.
Every state has a law called the “law of intestate succession.” This law is the state’s statutory scheme for determining who inherits property when a person dies owning property and the person does not have a valid Will. Arizona’s intestate succession laws are found in Title 14, Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Arizona’s law of intestate succession provides for the following inheritance rules for an Arizona resident who dies without a Will:
- If you die single, your estate goes to your descendants by representation.
- If you die single with no descendants, your estate goes to your parents equally if both survive or to the surviving parent.
- If you die single with no descendants and both of your parents are deceased, your estate goes to the descendants of your parents or either of them by representation.
- If you die while married, your entire estate goes to your spouse if you do not have any descendants or if ALL of your descendants are descendants of you and your spouse.
- If you die while married and have any descendants that are not descendants of you and your spouse, your spouse will inherit one-half of the intestate separate property and none of your community property.
If you are married and have any children with a person who is not your spouse, pay close attention to the last rule listed above because it could create a nightmare for your spouse.
Example: Homer has a son named Bob who is not his wife Marge’s son. Homer and Marge are estranged from Bob. Homer & Marge own 100% of World Wide Widgets Arizona, LLC, as community property. The LLC is worth $500,000. Homer is an Arizona resident and dies without a Will. Homer does not own any separate property. Arizona law provides that Marge inherits nothing, zip, zero, nada other than a spousal homestead allowance of $18,000. Homer’s membership interest in the LLC goes to Bob who now becomes half owner of the LLC with Marge. Not only has Homer’s failure to plan cost Marge $250,000, but Homer left Marge the giant headache of operating a business with Bob who knows nothing about the business and only wants his $250,000.
Arizona law does provide that “The decedent’s surviving spouse and minor children whom the decedent was obligated to support and children who were in fact being supported by the decedent are entitled to a reasonable allowance in money out of the estate for their maintenance during the period of administration. This allowance shall not continue for longer than one year if the estate is inadequate to discharge allowed claims.” This allowance however, does not amount to a lot of money.
If you do not know for a fact that the person or people you want to inherit your ownership interest will actually inherit your LLCs when you die then you need to take action now to protect your loved ones and insure that the LLCs go to your desired heirs. However, if you are happy to do nothing and let the law of intestate succession determine who will inherit your LLCs, your heirs will still be required to open an expensive and public probate proceeding with an Arizona superior court.
Best, but More Expensive Solution
The best solution to make sure that your ownership interest in LLCs goes to your desired heirs is to create a trust and have the trust own the LLC. When the trust owns the LLC there is no need for a probate because the trust owns the LLC interest before and after your death. See “How to Transfer an LLC to a Trust” for more on this topic.
Cheapest and Simplest Solution
The simplest way to make sure your Arizona LLCs go to the right person or people after you die is to sign a Transfer of Membership Interest Testament. This simple document not only specifies who inherits your Arizona LLCs, but it also avoids an expensive probate of your LLC interest. To learn more about this important family protection document read my article called “Who will Inherit Your Membership Interest in Your Arizona LLC When You Die?“
Beware of the Parent LLC that Owns a Subsidiary LLC
Question: My accountant says that I should form a parent LLC that will own subsidiary LLCs to reduce the administration headaches and expenses. Should I have a parent LLC own three other LLCs that each own a rental property?
Answer: It depends on your risk tolerance.
A lot of people ask me what I think about the parent – subsidiary entity structure. This structure exists when one LLC (the parent LLC) owns one or more other LLCs (subsidiary LLCs).
Most people understand that maximum asset protection requires that you put one real estate property or one business in an LLC that owns no other property or operates no other businesses. We all know what happens if you put all your eggs in one basket and drop the basket – you lose all your eggs. The primary reason to put real estate properties and businesses in separate limited liability companies is so that a financial problem with one does not affect the value of any other properties or business.
There are several disadvantages with owning multiple entities. They are more expensive to create and operate. The administrative burdens such as bookkeeping and tax returns are multiplied. You need a separate bank account for each entity. Multiple entities are more work and cost more than a single entity.
Some people create a parent – subsidiary entity structure to reduce the burdens of owning and operating multiple limited liability companies. The parent – subsidiary structure exists when multiple entities (the “subsidiaries”) are owned by a single entity (the “parent”). Many accountants recommend the parent – subsidiary structure to reduce administrative burdens and costs. Some people create this structure when they own a lot of LLCs that have rental real estate properties and want to have a parent LLC that is a property management company.
The problem with the parent – subsidiary structure is that you are taking your carefully and expensively created separate entities that you formed to maximize asset protection and putting them all in one basket. If a creditor sues the parent and gets a judgment against the parent, the creditor can reach all of the parent’s non-LLC assets, but if the subsidiary LLCs are Arizona LLCs the creditor can only serve a charging order on every subsidiary entity. The charging order would require the subsidiary LLCs to make all future distributions of money or property to the creditor instead of to the parent LLC.
You may think the risk of having a claim brought against the parent is low, but it may not be. For example, if you are driving to meet a prospective tenant who wants to rent a home owned by LLC #1 and you run a red light and kill or injure somebody, you and the parent and LLC #1 will be sued and you and the two LLCs will be liable. If the judgment exceeds the parent’s insurance coverage, the creditor will take everything the parent owns until the judgment is satisfied.
If you are contemplating the parent – subsidiary entity structure, you will have to decide, which is more important: (i) maximizing asset protection, or (ii) minimizing administrative burdens or expenses.
P.S. If you do have a parent – subsidiary structure, make sure that your insurance coverage is adequate.
Arizona Corporation Commission vs. Joseph Consenza & U.S. Media Team, LLC
The Arizona Corporation Commission issued the following press release on August 11, 2011:
” the Commission ordered Joseph Consenza of Phoenix to pay $205,000 in restitution and a $20,000 administrative penalty for defrauding seven investors in connection with the offer and sale of unregistered securities. The Commission found that, while not registered to offer and sell securities in Arizona, Consenza, who was the sole manager of Scottsdale-based U.S. Media Team, LLC, sold a promissory note to one investor and misused those funds to pay for personal expenses and to make payments to other individuals. Additionally, the Commission found that, while president and chief executive officer of Nevada-based Cell Wireless, Inc., Consenza offered and sold his company’s stock to six investors—five of whom were friends and family of Consenza’s initial investor—and represented that investor money would fund the operations and acquisitions of Cell Wireless, Inc. Further, the Commission found that, while promising sizable monetary returns, Consenza represented the risk level of the stock investment as low yet failed to inform investors that U.S. Media Team, LLC had defaulted on a prior merger agreement with Cell Wireless, Inc. In settling this matter, Consenza neither admitted nor denied the Commission findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order. “
How Do I Acquire an Ownership Interest in an Arizona LLC as Separate Property?
Question: My spouse and I are Arizona residents. I formed an Arizona LLC by filing Articles of Organization that state that I am the sole member. Even though I was married when I formed the LLC, my spouse is not listed in the Articles of Organization as a member of my LLC. How do I prove that I am the sole owner of the LLC and that my spouse does not own one half of the LLC as community property?
Answer: You must have your spouse sign a written document (I call it a Disclaimer of Membership Interest in an Arizona Limited Liability Company) in which the non-owner spouse acknowledges that the non-owner spouse does not have any ownership interest in the owner spouse’s membership interest in the LLC.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-211.A states:
“All property acquired by either husband or wife during the marriage is the community property of the husband and wife except for property that is:
1. Acquired by gift, devise or descent.
2. Acquired after service of a petition for dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment if the petition results in a decree of dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment.
The word “devise” means inheriting property through a will. The word “descent” means inheriting property from a relative who died without a will.
If you are a resident of Arizona who is married and you form an Arizona LLC or if you acquire a membership interest in an Arizona LLC while you are married your spouse will own a community property interest in the company with you EVEN IF HE/SHE IS NOT NAMED IN THE ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION, AN OPERATING AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LLC DOCUMENT unless Section 25-211.A applies to make your ownership separate property. The legal consequence of owning as community property is that each spouse owns an undivided one half of the total amount of the membership interest. For example, if the spouse named in the Articles of Organization as a member owns 100% or 50% of the LLC, community property ownership means each spouse owns 50% and 25% respectively of the LLC. If you divorce, each spouse will be entitled to his/her one half membership interest or other property of equivalent value.
How to Create a Separate Property Ownership Interest in an Arizona LLC
If a married resident of Arizona wants to own his or her interest in an Arizona LLC as separate property rather jointly with the other spouse as community property, the owner spouse must obtain the signature of the non-owner spouse on a document in which the non-owner spouse disclaims any ownership of the membership interest in the LLC. If the non-owner spouse will not sign a disclaimer, the LLC will be owned equally by the two spouses as community property unless Section 25-211.A applies to make the LLC membership interest separate property.
Purchase Arizona LLC attorney Richard Keyt’s Disclaimer of Membership Interest in an Arizona Limited Liability Company
If you are a married Arizona resident and you want own your membership interest in an Arizona LLC as separate property, you need to purchase my Disclaimer of a Membership Interest in an Arizona Limited Liability Company form for $47. As soon as your credit card payment is approved, you will receive an email message with the disclaimer attached as an Abode pdf fillable form. Simply type the information into the blank spaces, print the document and present it to the non-owner spouse for signature.
How Do I Amend the Articles of Organization of an Arizona LLC?
Question: One of the members of my member managed Arizona LLC has ceased to be a member. I know that Arizona LLC law requires that the LLC amend it Articles of Organization on file with the Arizona Corporation Commission. How do I amend the Articles of Organization?
Answer: Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-3202 requires that a member of a member managed Arizona LLC must prepare Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Organization and file it with the Arizona Corporation Commission if a member named in the Articles of Organization on file with the ACC ceases to be a member or if the Articles of Organization does not name a person or entity who is a member. The same is true of of a manager managed Arizona LLC if:
A. A person or entity acquires 20% or more of the capital or profits of the company (for example: a 5% owner becomes a 20% owner); or
B. A person or entity named in the Articles of Organization ceases to own a 20% or greater interest in the capital or profits interest of the company.
See also my article called “When Must an Arizona LLC Amend Its Articles of Organization?“