Utah Supreme Court

Can a limited liability company member avoid expulsion by claiming retirement? CCD v. Millsap Explained

2005 UT 42
No. 20020875
July 8, 2005
Affirmed

Summary

Christopher Millsap, a member and manager of CCD limited liability company, misappropriated over $625,000 from the company’s trust account for personal use. After entering an amended operating agreement giving him a second chance, Millsap continued misappropriating funds. When CCD sought to expel him under the Utah Limited Liability Company Act, Millsap claimed he had retired and could not be expelled.

Analysis

In CCD v. Millsap, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a limited liability company member could avoid statutory expulsion by claiming retirement after engaging in wrongful conduct. This case provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling LLC member disputes and expulsion proceedings.

Background and Facts

Christopher Millsap was a member and manager of CCD, L.C., which operated a title company. After Millsap misappropriated $625,000 from the company’s trust account for personal real estate investments, the members entered an amended operating agreement giving him a second chance. Despite this agreement specifically prohibiting him from accessing trust accounts, Millsap continued misappropriating funds, taking an additional $11,540.06. When CCD moved to expel him under Utah Code section 48-2c-710, Millsap claimed he had retired and could no longer be expelled as a member.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a limited liability company member could avoid judicial expulsion under the Utah Limited Liability Company Act by claiming retirement after engaging in conduct warranting expulsion. The court also examined the relationship between contractual operating agreement provisions and statutory expulsion rights that cannot be waived.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court rejected Millsap’s “I quit before you fired me” argument, holding that policy considerations underlying the Limited Liability Company Act prevent members from avoiding expulsion through strategic retirement. The court emphasized that allowing such tactics would frustrate the Act’s purpose of providing companies with tools to remove members who engage in wrongful conduct. The court noted that Utah Code section 48-2c-120(1)(f) expressly prohibits operating agreements from varying statutory expulsion rights, demonstrating the legislature’s intent to preserve these protections.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that statutory expulsion provisions under Utah Code section 48-2c-710 cannot be circumvented by membership withdrawal or retirement claims. Practitioners should focus expulsion actions on the statutory grounds rather than contractual provisions, as these rights are non-waivable. The decision also clarifies that companies need not seek expulsion immediately upon discovering misconduct—they may provide second chances without waiving future expulsion rights for continued wrongdoing.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

CCD v. Millsap

Citation

2005 UT 42

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20020875

Date Decided

July 8, 2005

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A member of a limited liability company cannot avoid expulsion under Utah Code section 48-2c-710 by attempting to retire after engaging in wrongful conduct that materially affects the company’s business.

Standard of Review

Correctness for summary judgment determinations and legal conclusions

Practice Tip

When representing limited liability companies seeking member expulsion, focus on the statutory grounds under Utah Code section 48-2c-710 rather than contractual expulsion provisions, as statutory rights cannot be waived by operating agreements.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Hoffhine

    January 23, 2001

    A trial court’s partial suppression of showup identification evidence constitutes harmless error when the identification would have met constitutional reliability standards under the Ramirez factors.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Dept. of Public Safety v. CSRB

    May 20, 2004

    An officer’s subjective determination of whether he initiated a vehicular pursuit is not controlling in determining whether a vehicular pursuit occurred under the agency’s policy.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.