McCLANDON v. DAKEM & ASSOCIATES, LLC Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A creditor sought to collect a judgment from a debtor’s interest in LLCs. The court held that while a receiver could be appointed to enforce a charging order, the receiver could not assume managerial control of the LLCs, only collect distributions.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that under Florida’s LLC statute, a charging order is the exclusive remedy against a member’s transferable interest, and a receiver appointed to enforce it cannot exercise managerial control over the LLC.
McCLANDON v. DAKEM & ASSOCIATES, LLC Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Appellee Dakem & Associates, LLC, a judgment creditor, sought to collect a twelve-year-old judgment domesticated in Florida against Appellant Joeann McClandon. McClandon held a controlling interest in eleven limited liability companies (“LLCs”). To satisfy the judgment, Dakem initiated proceedings supplementary. The trial court granted Dakem a charging order against McClandon’s transferable interest in these LLCs, requiring the LLCs to pay over to Dakem any distribution that would otherwise be paid to McClandon. To enforce this charging order, the trial court appointed a receiver. This receiver was granted authority to take control of the finances of four of the LLCs, effectively acting as their Chief Financial Officer, and was authorized to make financial management decisions for these entities. McClandon appealed the portion of the order appointing the receiver with such broad managerial powers, arguing it exceeded the scope permitted by Florida’s LLC statute, section 605.0503.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Florida Statute § 605.0503, which designates a charging order as the sole and exclusive remedy against a judgment debtor’s transferable interest in an LLC, permit a court to appoint a receiver with managerial control over the LLC to enforce that charging order?
The court affirmed the trial court’s appointment of a receiver to enforce Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Florida Statute § 605.0503, which designates a charging order as the sole and exclusive remedy against a judgment debtor’s transferable interest in an LLC, permit a court to appoint a receiver with managerial control over the LLC to enforce that charging order?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that a charging order against an LLC Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
Legal Rule
Under Florida Statute § 605.0503(3) (2015), a charging order is the sole Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the interpretation of section 605.0503, Florida Statutes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court may appoint a receiver to enforce a charging order