Skip to main content

§ 522(b)(4)

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

Chaudury, In re

Ruling
Court deemed that the overriding requirement of the rollover rule was simply that therollover occur within the specified time period. (Bankr. M.D. Tenn.)
Issue(s)
Exemptions; Choice Between Federal and State Law; Special Provisions For Retirement Funds; Rollovers.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 01, 2018 , LexisNexis #0318-038

In re Gilbraith

Ruling
Plan was qualified on petition date and in substantial compliance with the Internal Revenue Code so as to be presumed exempt.
Issue(s)
Was pension plan properly qualified and in substantial compliance with the Internal Revenue Code for funds in the plan to be exempt?

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on December 24, 2014 , LexisNexis #0115-081

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

Agin v. Daniels (In re Daniels)

Ruling
Debtor could not claim exemption in funds in profit sharing plan, due to prohibited transactions, or in IRA that was funded by the plan.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff Chapter 7 trustee filed a motion for summary judgment in his action against defendant debtor, which sought a turnover of the debtor's interest in funds in a profit sharing plan and two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), claiming that they could not be exempted from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(b)(4). The debtor filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trustee moved to strike the debtor's cross-motion.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 16, 2011 , LexisNexis #0711-114