[CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure

Dr Eberhard Lisse el at lisse.NA
Thu Jul 9 14:40:18 UTC 2015

Dear Co-Chairs,

I most certainly don't see the UA happen, in particular as far as ccTLDs
are concerned, but Auntie Google reveals:



	2011 California Code Corporations Code TITLE 3.
	Liability and Enforcement of Judgments Section 18270


	(a) A judgment creditor of a member, director, officer, or
	agent of an unincorporated association may not levy
	execution against the assets of the member, director,
	officer, or agent to satisfy a judgment based on a claim
	against the unincorporated association unless a judgment
	based on the same claim has been obtained against the
	unincorporated association and any of the following
	conditions is satisfied:

		(1) A writ of execution on the judgment against the
		unincorporated association has been returned
		unsatisfied in whole or in part.

		(2) The unincorporated association is a debtor in

		(3) The member, director, officer, or agent has
		agreed that the creditor need not exhaust the assets
		of the unincorporated association.

		(4) A court grants permission to the judgment
		creditor to levy execution against the assets of a
		member, director, officer, or agent based on a
		finding that the assets of the unincorporated
		association subject to execution are clearly
		insufficient to satisfy the judgment, that
		exhaustion of the assets of the unincorporated
		association is excessively burdensome, or that the
		grant of permission is an appropriate exercise of
		the court s equitable powers.


As the UAs will not have any or much assets, (a)(1) and/or (a)(4) are
not very high hurdles...


On 2015-07-09 15:07, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Nigel,
> A California unincorporated association is a limited liability
> vehicle, as it is in certain other jurisdictions.  If we were to
> go down the route of have SO/ACs be/create/empower (three
> different options) a legal entity, one would expect a choice to be
> made that would shield SO/ACs and their members from unlimited
> legal liability (and there are a variety of options to do so).
> While this should be implicit by now in this discussion, since it
> has been explicitly discussed in the past, I'm glad for the
> opportunity to make it explicit once again.  Suggesting someone
> cross the street is not equivalent to telling them to walk into
> traffic.
> Greg
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>     Greg, all
>     I have a deadly serious question.
>     Why would any Member of an SO voluntarily submit to the danger of
>     unlimited monetary liability?
>     So why is anyone even considering UA status for more than 10 seconds?
>     Nigel
>     See
>     http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-or-unincorporated-association/

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list