(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2016)
The bankruptcy court denies the United States Trustee’s (“UST”) motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). The UST did not argue that the debtor filed in bad faith, but instead the totality of the circumstances of the debtor’s financial situation warranted dismissal. The debtor scheduled significant monthly retirement payments and tax overpayments that the UST contended could be used to fund a Chapter 13 plan. The court finds that the circumstances here did not warrant dismissal, in part due to the debtor’s age and retirement savings to date. Opinion below.
2016-01-04 – in re horn
Author: Matt Lindblom
(7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2015)
The Seventh Circuit addresses two Wisconsin exemption statutes and reverses in part the bankruptcy court’s decision. The bankruptcy court held that a state statute exempting “an interest in a college savings account” only applied to beneficiaries of such accounts, and not the owner of the account. The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding that the statute may also be used by owners of such accounts. The other statute at issue exempted “retirement benefits,” and the court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order permitting the debtor to claim as exempt an annuity under the statute. Opinion below.
2015-01-05 – cirilli v bronk
(6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2014)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the chapter 7 debtor’s claimed exemption in a deferred-compensation retirement plan. The debtor claimed his deferred-compensation credits were exempt under Tennessee law. The trustee objected. While the plan fit the Tennessee statute’s general definition of exempt retirement accounts or plans, an exception to the statute applied. Because the debtor had the option to accelerate payment and take a lump sum distribution, the exemption did not apply. Thus, the deferred-compensation credits were correctly held to be property of the estate. Opinion below.
2014-12-15 – lawless v newton
(U.S. Supreme Court, Issued June 12, 2014)
The U.S. Supreme Court holds that funds in an inherited IRA cannot be exempted from property of the estate as “retirement funds.” Congress did not intend for inherited IRAs to be exemptable property because of the inherent differences between an inherited IRA and a traditional IRA, including that funds from inherited IRAs may be withdrawn at any time. Opinion below.
2014-06-12 – clark v rameker