In re Lee

• Decision Date: 23 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–82374.,13–82374.
• Citation: 514 B.R. 578
• Parties: In re Ronald D. LEE, Debtor.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Central District of Illinois

514 B.R. 578

In re Ronald D. LEE, Debtor.

No. 13–82374.

United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois.

Signed July 23, 2014.

OPINION

THOMAS L. PERKINS, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before the Court is the objection filed by Jeana K. Reinbold, the Chapter 7 Trustee (TRUSTEE), to certain exemptions claimed by the Debtor, Ronald D. Lee (DEBTOR), specifically an exemption of the cash surrender value of two life insurance policies and an exemption in a bank account.

The facts of this case are not disputed. The DEBTOR, proceeding pro se, filed a Chapter 7 petition on December 30, 2013. In the schedules filed with his petition, the DEBTOR disclosed his interest in two life insurance policies with Northwestern Mutual. Policy # 6–910–816 was listed as having a cash surrender value of $10,223 and # 7–706–169 was shown with a cash surrender value of $10,433. The DEBTOR also scheduled a “pension” account at Blackhawk Bank & Trust with a balance of $3,894 (“Blackhawk account”). The DEBTOR claimed the insurance policies as exempt under section 238(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILCS 5/238(a), and the Blackhawk account as exempt under section 12–1006 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/12–1006.

Despite an initial misunderstanding, the parties now agree to the material facts about the insurance policies.¹ The DEBTOR'S life is insured under both policies (he pays the premiums), and his son, Joshua, is the sole beneficiary named in each policy. Joshua is an adult who does not reside with the DEBTOR, and whom the DEBTOR concedes is not his dependent.

The disputed issue is whether the cash surrender value of these policies is exempt pursuant to section 238(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code, which provides:

(a) All proceeds payable because of the death of the insured and the aggregate net cash value of any or all life and endowment policies and annuity contracts payable to a wife or husband of the insured, or to a child, parent or other person dependent upon the insured, whether the power to change the beneficiary is reserved to the insured or not, and whether the insured or his estate is a contingent beneficiary or not, shall be exempt from execution, attachment, garnishment or other process, for the debts or liabilities of the insured incurred subsequent to the effective date of this Code, except as to premiums paid in fraud of creditors within the period limited by law for the recovery thereof.

215 ILCS 5/238(a). It is the DEBTOR'S position that, as both the owner of and the insured under the policies, he is the only person that possesses a present entitlement to any interest under the policies, so that he is entitled to claim the cash surrender value as exempt. The DEBTOR maintains that the dependency status of his son is not relevant, as his son is not the one claiming the exemption.

In support of his position, the DEBTOR relies on this Court's prior decision in In re Ashley, 317 B.R. 352 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2004), holding that a debtor who had received life insurance proceeds from policies insuring the life of her late husband was entitled to claim an exemption in the full amount of the proceeds under section 12–1001(f) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, without having to establish that the proceeds were reasonably necessary for her support or the support of a dependent of hers.² In that decision, the Court examined the three statutory provisions which provide exemptions for life insurance, noting that the Insurance Code exemption at issue here protects the proceeds or cash value only against the debts of the insured, and not from the beneficiary's own creditors. Because it was the beneficiary in Ashley that was seeking to protect insurance proceeds from her creditors, section 238(a) was not applicable.

As section 238(a) makes clear, however, the ability of an owner of a life insurance policy to claim an exemption in its cash surrender value, depends upon whether the designated beneficiary meets one of the categorical conditions set forth in the statute. It is well settled that an owner of a life insurance policy may claim an exemption under this provision only if the beneficiary is the individual's spouse or is a dependent child, dependent parent or other person dependent upon the insured. The inapplicability of this exemption to a policy naming a non-dependent child as a beneficiary was decided by In re Schriar, 284 F.2d 471 (7th Cir.1960). The court held that the phrase “dependent upon the insured” modifies “child” and “parent,” as well as “other person,” thus requiring a showing that such child or parent is in fact dependent upon the insured. The language of the statute has not changed since Schriar and the result remains the same. The lower courts in this Circuit have consistently followed Schriar. See, In re Bunting, 322 B.R. 852, 853–54 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2005)(collecting cases).

The DEBTOR also relies on an insurance policy provision which he characterizes as a “spendthrift” provision. The DEBTOR attaches a single page, captioned “Section 8. Beneficiaries,” which includes, among the subcategory of general provisions in section 8.3:

(b) Claims of Creditors. So far as permitted by law, no amount payable under this policy shall be subject to the claims of creditors of the payee.

Emphasizing that he can be the only “payee” of the policies during his lifetime, the DEBTOR relies on the contractual provision to insulate the cash surrender value of the policies from the grasp of the TRUSTEE. First, the Court notes that the page of the policy submitted by the DEBTOR is limited to “Beneficiaries.” From a reading of that single page, it is apparent that its provisions are directed only to payees who are “beneficiaries” designated by the owner. The DEBTOR, though both the owner and insured, is not a beneficiary and thus is not a “payee.” Rather, the contractual provision relied upon by the DEBTOR is intended to protect the proceeds held by the insurance company (either the accumulated cash value or the death benefit itself) from attachment by creditors of the beneficiaries.

Apart from the inapplicability of that policy provision, the DEBTOR'S argument suffers from a more basic flaw. In order for the DEBTOR'S interests in the life insurance policies to be insulated from the claims of creditors in bankruptcy, those interests must either be excluded from the bankruptcy estate under section 541(b) or (c)(2), or exempt under section 522(b)(2). In re Balay, 113 B.R. 429 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1990). Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, virtually all property that the debtor owns on that date becomes property of the bankruptcy estate. See In re Quade, 498 B.R. 852 (N.D.Ill.2013). Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code broadly defines property of the bankruptcy estate to include “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” The scope of section 541 is broad and unquestionably includes a debtor's interest in a life insurance policy.

Despite the breadth of this provision, section 541 contains several exclusions from property of the estate. The DEBTOR'S characterization of the contractual provision of the life insurance policy as a “spendthrift” clause invokes section 541(c)(2), which excludes a debtor's beneficial interest in a trust that is subject to a restriction on transfer that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law. 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The “spendthrift exception,” by its terms, applies only to a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust. See In re Powell, 511 B.R. 107 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2014). Contractual restrictions on transfer are ineffective in bankruptcy except as applicable to a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust. In re Jokiel, 453 B.R. 743, 750 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2011).

A trust is defined as “a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, arising from a manifestation of intent to create that relationship and subjecting the person who holds title to the property to duties to deal with it for the benefit of charity or for one or more persons, at least one of whom is not the sole trustee.” Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 2 (2003). It is well-settled under Illinois law that no fiduciary relationship exists between an insurer and an insured as a matter of law. Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 714 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir.2013). Rather, the relationship between an insurance company and the insured is simply contractual in nature. The DEBTOR does not argue that particular provisions of the insurance policies create a trust as between the insurance company and the DEBTOR. In any event, the DEBTOR'S ability to obtain the cash surrender value at any time is antithetical to a spendthrift trust.

To the extent that the DEBTOR contends that the contractual provision creates an “exemption” for the cash surrender value, his argument is unavailing. Exemptions are creatures of statute, and may not be created by contract. Reade v. Kerr, 52 Ill.App. 467, 1893 WL 2458 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.1894); In re Thum, 329 B.R. 848 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2005) (citing In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill.2d 266, 277, 82 Ill.Dec. 633, 469 N.E.2d 167 (1984)(exempt property is that which the legislature has identified and declared to be free from liability for the satisfaction of debts)); In re Lowe, 252 B.R. 614, 625–26 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2000).

Accordingly, the TRUSTEE'S objection is valid and the DEBTOR'S claim of exemptionin the cash surrender value of the two life insurance policies pursuant to section 238(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code will be denied.

The second issue is whether the funds in the Blackhawk account are exempt pursuant to section 12–1006, the exemption for retirement plans. The TRUSTEE does not dispute that the funds in the account are traceable solely to pension benefits or that the funds have been maintained in a segregated fashion. Section 12–1006 provides in pertinent part:

(a) A debtor's interest in or right, whether vested or not, to the...