Boronat v. Boronat, 1282--II
| Decision Date | 17 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1282--II,1282--II |
| Parties | Samantha BORONAT, Appellant, v. Frank E. BORONAT, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Argal D. Oberquell, Oberquell & Ahlf, Lacey, for appellant.
Wayne L. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.
Samantha Boronat appeals from the quashing of her writ of garnishment served upon the Washington State Employees Retirement System. By the garnishment she sought to recover a judgment for alimony, child support, property settlement and attorney's fees from her ex-husband's contributions to the retirement fund. The first impression issue presented is whether she was barred from recovering this judgment from his contributions to the retirement fund by virtue of RCW 41.40.380, which exempts benefits and rights granted in chapter 40 from legal process. We hold that the absolute bar created by the section applies to alimony, child support, property settlement and associated attorney's fees, and therefore affirm.
Upon the parties' divorce on June 26, 1973, Frank Boronat was awarded as his separate property, the community interest in the Washington State Employees Retirement Fund, approximately $4,119. Mrs. Boronat was awarded a total of $3,050 in alimony, accrued child support, attorney's fees and property settlement and $100 per month child support, none of which has been paid. On August 15, 1973, Mr. Boronat terminated his employment with the State of Washington and apparently requested withdrawal of his contributions to the retirement fund and accrued interest. On August 29, 1973, Mrs. Boronat filed and served a writ of garnishment on the Washington State Employees Retirement System, seeking to recover from these contributions the amount owed her. The trial court quashed the writ ruling that RCW 41.40.380 protected Mr. Boronat's contributions to the fund from garnishment, even for collection of alimony and support.
The statute under consideration, RCW 41.40.380, provides in relevant part:
The right of a person to a pension, an annuity, or retirement allowance, any optional benefit, any other right accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this chapter, the various funds created by this chapter, and all moneys and investments and income thereof, are hereby exempt from any state, county, municipal, or other local tax, and shall not be subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, the operation of bankruptcy or insolvency laws, or other process of law whatsoever, and shall be unassignable: . . .
The basic rule of statutory construction applies here: where the language of a statute is unambiguous, no construction is needed. An important corollary is that exceptions and matters not present will not be read into a statute. King County v. Seattle, 70 Wash.2d 988, 425 P.2d 887 (1967). The language of RCW 41.40.380 is plain and clearly answers the two questions raised by this appeal.
Contrary to Mrs. Boronat's first contention, a public employee does have a statutory right, upon termination of employment, to a refund of his contributions to the retirement fund. The right to a refund is a 'right' contemplated by the language 'any other right accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this chapter, . . .' Each member of the retirement system is required to contribute a certain percentage of his compensation to the fund. RCW 41.40.330. Such contributions are to be placed in an employees' savings fund with all other employees' contributions. RCW 41.40.100. An employee is entitled to receive an amount equal to his contributions to the fund upon termination of employment. RCW 41.40.260. The exemption of RCW 41.40.380 applies to an employee's contributions to the fund.
In support of her second contention that the exemptions of this statute do not apply to actions to enforce judgments for alimony and child support, Mrs. Boronat relies primarily upon Pishue v. Pishue, 32 Wash.2d 750, 203 P.2d 1070 (1949) and cases from other jurisdictions in which it has been held that particular statutory exemptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthis v. Copland
...exemption statute, which contains substantially similar language granting the “right” to a “retirement allowance.” RCW 41.40.052(1). In Boronat, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Boronat's pension could not be attached by Mrs. Boronat. Boronat v. Boronat, 13 Wash.App. 671, 674, 537 P.2d 10......
-
Farver v. Department of Retirement Systems
...cast some doubt on the validity of direct payments. See Pittman v. Pittman, 64 Wash.2d 735, 393 P.2d 957 (1964); Boronat v. Boronat, 13 Wash.App. 671, 537 P.2d 1050 (1975). Viewing the decree as a whole and considering the surrounding circumstances, we do not believe the court intended to o......
-
Dolan v. King County
... ... (1990); Mulhausen v. Bates, 9 Wn.2d 264, 114 P.2d ... 995 (1941); and Boronat v. Boronat, 13 Wn.App. 671, ... 537 P.2d 1050 (1975). These cases clearly are inapplicable ... ...
-
And v. King Cnty.
...493 U.S. 365, 110 S. Ct. 680, 107 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1990); Mulhausen v. Bates, 9 Wn.2d 264, 114 P.2d 995 (1941); and Boronat v. Boronat, 13 Wn. App. 671, 537 P.2d 1050 (1975). These cases clearly are inapplicable and do not compel a different result. 7. The "fix" attempts to clarify that emplo......