In re Gaudette
Decision Date | 11 June 1999 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 96-12653-MWV. Adversary No. 97-1096-MWV. |
Citation | 240 BR 649 |
Parties | In re Reginald GAUDETTE, Debtor. Richard R. Erricola, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Reginald Gaudette, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Hampshire |
Geraldine Karonis, Assistant U.S. Trustee, Manchester, NH, for UST J. Christopher Marshall.
William S. Gannon, Wadliegh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., Manchester, NH, Thomas J. Raftery, Carlisle, MA, for plaintiff.
Joseph A. Foster, Ralph Holmes, McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton P.A., Nashua, NH, Marc L. Van De Water, Thomas, Utell, Van De Water & Raiche, Manchester, NH, for defendant.
The Court has before it the Plaintiff's Request for Ruling, which seeks a determination that the Debtor's pension plan, the OFS Pension Plan and Trust ("OFSPPT" or "Plan"), is not a qualified pension plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's request and finds that the OFSPPT is not a pension plan subject to ERISA and is therefore property of the estate under section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and the "Standing Order of Referral of Title 11 Proceedings to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire," dated January 18, 1994 (DiClerico, C.J.). This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).
This matter is before the Court for a decision based upon the following thirty-nine stipulated, verbatim facts from Exhibit A of the parties' Joint Final Pretrial Statement:
Plaintiff's Exhibit 101 and Defendant's Exhibit 1 were admitted into evidence at hearing on April 8, 1998; Defendant's Exhibit 1 is a binder of exhibits which supports the stipulated facts. Exhibit 101 is a Power of Attorney executed by Louise Gaudette on October 4, 1986, which grants a power of attorney to her husband, Reginald Gaudette, and which states that he may:
act as my attorney or agent in relation to all matters in which I may be interested or concerned and on my behalf to execute any document and to do anything effectually in my name, place and stead as if I were present.
The Plaintiff's Request for Ruling and Memorandum of Law ("Plaintiff's Request") seeks a determination that: (1) the OFS Pension Plan and Trust ("Plan"), a pension plan established by OFS Lending, Inc., is not an "ERISA-qualified" plan; and (2) the Debtor's interest in funds of the Plan, upon which the Debtor has claimed an exemption under Schedule C,3 is property of the estate pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.4
In Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 765, 112 S.Ct. 2242, 119 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992), the Supreme Court held that "a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan may be excluded from the property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to § 541(c)(2)." It also read the phrase "applicable nonbankruptcy law" in section 541(c)(2) to apply by its plain meaning to both state and federal law, id. at 759, 112 S.Ct. 2242, and found that the pension plan at issue was qualified under the Internal Revenue Code ("I.R.C." or "IRC"), 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(13),5 and subject to ERISA, in that it contained an antialienation provision.6 Id. at 759-60, 112 S.Ct. 2242. Notably absent from the Supreme Court's opinion, however, was a definition of the term "ERISA-qualified." See Patterson, 504 U.S. 753, 112 S.Ct. 2242, 119 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992). Since 1992, courts' interpretations of plans have included one to four of the following features:
To continue reading
Request your trial