charging order against a limited partnership interest, thus becoming an assignee of their
debtors interest, is statutorily barred from obtaining the financial information to which the
member, as a member, has a statutory right, seems obvious.
The limited liability partnership statutes do not specifically define the permissible scope of a
charging order against a limited partners interest. The Zemp court, relying on ORS 70.615 which
directs a court to apply the general partnership statute, ORS Chapter 67, to resolve any case not
provided for in the limited liability partnership statute, therefore applied ORS 67.205, defining
the permissible scope of a charging order against a general partnership interest, to also define the
permissible scope of a charging order against a limited partnership interest. Ibid. at 667.
Yet even ORS 67.205 limits the permissible scope of a charging order against a general partners
partnership interest to the debtors transferable interest. In a general partnership, a partners
only transferable interest is: . . . the partners share of the profits and losses of the partnership
and the partners right to receive distributions. ORS 67.005(17). So too, with respect to a
limited partnership, the limited partners only transferable interest is the right to receive such
distributions as their assignor would be entitled to receive. ORS 70.290. The limited partners
right as a partner to gain access to the partnerships financial records is not transferable and
thus not properly subject to any charging order if the language of ORS 67.205 is strictly applied.
Finally, the Court in Zemp wholly ignored the importance of contract in determining the rights of
both the creditor and, more importantly, the limited liability company and the limited liability
partnerships. Yet both the limited liability companys operating agreement and the limited
partnerships partnership agreements are the primary source defining the rights and obligations of
the members in those entities. ORS 63.057 explicitly notes the primacy of the operating
agreement in defining the rights and obligations of members in an LLC. Although the limited
liability partnership statute, ORS Chapter 70, is not so concisely explicit, it is nonetheless
permeated with the recognition that the statute is generally subordinate to the provisions of the
partnership agreement: e.g., ORS 70.130 (voting rights); 70.175 (admission of additional general
partners); 70.185 (rights, restrictions and liabilities of general partner); 70.230 (Obligation of
partner); 70.235 (allocation of profits and losses); etc.
In short, the Court of Appeals in Zemp created a muddle inconsistent with the statutory language
on which it based its conclusion. It did not coherently apply the applicable statutes nor did it
even acknowledge the contractual provisions governing the rights of members belonging to
entities which are uniquely creatures of contract. Hopefully a cure for this decision waits in the
future. In the meantime, it seems as though Oregon courts will be more respectful of LLCs than
of limited partnerships, at least in crafting the scope of charging orders to such entities.
4/12/2016 Lawrence B. Hunt of Hunt & Associates, P.C. All rights reserved.
Page 2