Florida LLC vs Nevada LLC

Forming an LLC in Nevada instead of Florida does not provide the asset protection benefits that Nevada formation companies advertise. Nevada’s charging order statute covers single-member LLCs, and naming another entity as manager keeps an owner’s name off Nevada’s public lists, as it does in Florida. Neither feature settles whose collection law reaches a Florida owner’s interest, and the courts that have applied Florida’s collection law are federal ones.

Wyoming’s LLC statute offers the same charging order protection, and its annual license fee starts lower than Nevada’s. For Florida residents, neither state offers a meaningful advantage over a properly structured Florida LLC.

Charging Order Protection

Nevada’s LLC statute provides that the charging order is the sole and exclusive remedy available to a personal creditor of any LLC member, regardless of whether the LLC has one member or multiple members. The statute bars foreclosure and any other remedy against the interest. Florida limits exclusive charging order protection to multi-member LLCs. Since Olmstead v. FTC, 44 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2010), a court can order a single-member LLC interest sold. The creditor must first satisfy the court that distributions will not pay off the judgment within a reasonable time.

This difference is the primary selling point for Nevada LLCs, but it assumes that a Florida court would apply Nevada law to a collection proceeding against a Florida resident. The federal judges in Florida who have reached the question located a Florida resident’s membership interest with its owner and applied Florida’s collection rules. No Florida appellate court has ruled, and Colorado’s and Iowa’s supreme courts place the interest in the formation state for charging-order enforcement. A creditor with a Florida judgment normally sues in Florida, and the forum decides which statute applies.

A Utah court addressed the same issue. Three judgment debtors held interests in eight Delaware LLCs, and Delaware provides charging order exclusivity. The Utah court applied Utah law over the debtors’ objection that Delaware law controlled and ordered their interests foreclosed and sold. The debtors sued in Delaware, and the federal court held the Utah rulings could not be relitigated. American Institutional Partners, LLC v. Fairstar Resources Ltd., 2011 WL 1230074 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2011).

The structural solution is the same regardless of the state of formation. A multi-member LLC receives exclusive charging order protection under Florida law, which is enforceable in a Florida court hearing the collection.

The Tenants by the Entirety Trap

Forming in Nevada creates a risk that does not exist with a Florida LLC. Nevada does not recognize tenants by the entirety ownership. A married couple in Florida who holds their LLC membership interest as tenants by the entirety gains protection from either spouse’s individual creditors. That layer operates independently of the LLC’s charging order shield.

If the same couple forms their LLC in Nevada, a creditor gains a Nevada courtroom, and the judge there may decide how the interest is owned under Nevada law. The entireties protection could be lost that way. A married couple living in Florida lost that argument before Iowa’s supreme court, which held their interest in an Iowa LLC was located there and applied Iowa law. Iowa does not recognize entireties ownership.

Forming in Nevada to gain charging order protection for a single-member LLC while losing entireties protection for a married couple is a poor trade. The entireties exemption is one of the strongest creditor protections available under Florida law. Loumpos v. Bank One, 423 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2025), applied it to a joint spousal bank account one spouse opened alone.

Privacy and Anonymous Ownership

Nevada requires names in its public filings. The articles of organization list each initial manager, or every initial member if the members manage the company, and the initial and annual lists name the managers or managing members with their addresses. Florida requires the name and address of at least one manager or managing member. Wyoming’s articles and annual report name neither a member nor a manager, so a Wyoming company can keep an individual’s name out of public databases.

A Florida resident can use a Nevada LLC as the listed member or manager of a Florida operating LLC, creating a layer of anonymity in Florida’s public records. This holding company structure has legitimate privacy value for real estate investors and business owners who want to keep their names out of public searches.

Privacy does not equal asset protection. Post-judgment discovery compels the debtor to disclose all business interests regardless of public record visibility. Anonymous ownership may slow an initial asset search but cannot prevent a creditor with a judgment from identifying and reaching the debtor’s LLC interests through sworn depositions and fact information sheets.

Cost Comparison

Nevada charges more than Florida and Wyoming to form an LLC and more than Florida to keep one in good standing each year.

	Florida LLC	Nevada LLC	Nevada LLC (operating in FL)
Formation filing	$125	$425	$425 + foreign registration (FL)
Annual report	$138.75	$150 + $200 business license	$350 (NV) + $138.75 (FL)
Registered agent	1 state	1 state	2 states

Nevada requires an annual state business license fee of $200 in addition to its $150 annual list filing fee. A Nevada LLC that also operates in Florida must register as a foreign LLC, file annual reports in both states, and maintain registered agents in both states. A dual-state Nevada LLC costs approximately $490 per year before registered agent fees, compared to $138.75 for a single Florida LLC.

When a Nevada LLC Makes Sense

A Nevada LLC is appropriate when the business operates in Nevada, the owner resides in Nevada, or the LLC holds assets physically located in Nevada. In those circumstances, Nevada’s courts apply Nevada law, and the statute’s protections function as intended. For an owner who lives outside Nevada, whether a Nevada court hears the collection case is itself the question. No Nevada Supreme Court decision has tested the one-member sentence in Nevada’s charging-order statute against a creditor who asked to foreclose a sole member’s interest.

A Nevada LLC may also work as an anonymous holding company for a Florida resident who wants to keep personal information off Florida’s public filings. In that limited role, the holding company provides genuine privacy value, though Wyoming offers more anonymity at lower cost.

For any purpose related to asset protection of a Florida resident’s membership interest, a Florida LLC structured with multiple members and a properly drafted operating agreement provides stronger and more reliable protection than a Nevada LLC. The protections are enforceable in the courts where collection actually happens, and the structure preserves tenants by the entirety eligibility that a Nevada formation would risk. The LLC overview covers how Florida LLCs protect membership interests from personal creditors.