Brant v. Krilich (2005)
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded orders reaching business bank accounts and transferring a judgment debtor’s entity interests. The complete primary opinion was retrieved from the unofficial OpenJurist reporter mirror, including the opinion and footnotes, in overlapping windows on 2026-10-17. Its automated good-law badge is not adopted here.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; official copy at Indiana Judicial Branch official appellate decisions (No. 45A03-0411-CV-514) (replaces
https://static.case.law/ne2d/835/cases/0582-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy).
Facts
After domestication of a judgment against William Brant, Robert Krilich sought accounts of businesses associated with Brant and transfer of his business interests in proceedings supplemental. The trial court assumed that the businesses were Brant’s alter egos without the necessary proof and without affording the entities the required notice and opportunity to be heard. Source: the full opinion, 835 N.E.2d at 583–590.
Holding and reasoning
Trial Rule 69(E) permits other parties and garnishees to participate; it does not dispense with process or evidence of ownership. A corporation’s assets are distinct from a shareholder’s assets. Reaching entity accounts required proof supporting the asserted ownership or alter-ego theory and participation by the affected entities. Source: opinion at 586–591.
For an LLC, the judgment debtor’s economic interest is personal property subject to execution, but the reachable economic interest differs from membership and management. IC 23-18-6-3 and -7 give an assignee distribution rights and the judgment creditor the rights specified by the charging-order statute. The creditor could not receive full membership merely because the debtor held an interest. The court described a charging order as essentially the creditor’s remedy against that interest. Source: opinion at 591–593.
Practical effect and limits
A purchaser/creditor must identify whether the proposed transfer concerns stock, an LLC economic interest, management rights or assets owned by the entity. An individual judgment alone does not establish title to entity property. The opinion does not create a statutory single-member exception or decide every priority dispute involving a separately perfected security interest. Source: opinion at 590–593.
Later treatment
The complete opinion in crider-v-crider-in-2014 follows Brant on entity participation
and the distinction between distributions and LLC membership/control. That is actual later
merits treatment; it is not comprehensive appellate-history or citator clearance. Additional
subsequent treatment remains needs_verification.
Full-text recheck (2026-10-18). The complete opinion (Sullivan, J.; Bailey and Mathias, JJ., concurring) was re-read in the verbatim Indiana Judicial Branch official opinion PDF (unofficial archive). It reverses the proceedings-supplemental orders because the garnishee businesses and business entities were not named, served or given an opportunity to be heard, and states that a charging order under IC 23-18-6-7 gives only an assignee’s rights, not membership.
Applies in →
indiana · equity-interests-stock-llc-charging-orders
Legal information, not legal advice. Read the complete opinion and current governing statutes.