Skip to main content

§ 522(b)(4)(A)

Xiao, In re--Chorches v. Xiao

Ruling
Trustee's objection sustained where there was no presumption that the plan was exempt anddebtor was materially responsible for the plan's substantial compliance failure. (Bankr. D.Conn.)
Issue(s)
Exemptions; Choice Between Federal and State Law; Special Provisions For Retirement Funds; Exemption For Funds Approved Under IRC § 7805.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Xiao, In re--Chorches v. Xiao Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 22, 2018 , LexisNexis #1018-011

Xiao, In re--Chorches v. Xiao

Ruling
Trustee's objection sustained where there was no presumption that the plan was exempt anddebtor was materially responsible for the plan's substantial compliance failure. (Bankr. D.Conn.)
Issue(s)
Exemptions; Choice Between Federal and State Law; Special Provisions For Retirement Funds; Exemption For Funds Approved Under IRC § 7805.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Xiao, In re--Chorches v. Xiao Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 22, 2018 , LexisNexis #1018-011

Daley v. Mostoller (In re Daley)

Ruling
IRA should have been presumed exempt absent evidence that debtor used the account to obtain credit.
Procedural posture

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville granted judgment in favor of appellee bankruptcy trustee by finding that appellant debtor had impermissibly used the individual retirement account (IRA) to extend himself credit by granting the securities firm a lien on the retirement funds to cover any potential future debts to the firm. The debtor appealed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Daley v. Mostoller (In re Daley) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 17, 2013 , LexisNexis #0713-043