Rowland v. Strickland
| Decision Date | 11 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1055,1055 |
| Citation | 294 S.C. 119,362 S.E.2d 892 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Carole Vann ROWLAND, Respondent, v. Russell H. STRICKLAND, Appellant. . Heard |
Stephen M. Bingman, Spartanburg, for appellant.
William S. Bean, Spartanburg, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court deciding that, under applicable federal law, an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) is not exempt from levy or attachment by a judgment creditor. We affirm.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001- 1461, provides: "Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1).
ERISA applies, by its terms, to "employee benefit plan[s]." 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a). An employee benefit plan is defined as "any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both...." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3), (1) and (2)(A). IRA's are not established or maintained by employers or employee organizations, but rather by individual employees.
IRA's are created under 26 U.S.C. § 408(a). There is no anti-alienation provision in that section such as is contained in Section 1056(d)(1) of ERISA.
Section 1056(d)(1) is a subdivision of Part 2 of the statute, entitled "Coverage and Vesting." Section 1051(6) of Part 2 provides that this part shall not apply to "an individual retirement account or annuity described in section 408...." Thus, Congress specifically excluded IRA's from the anti-alienation protection of Section 1056(d)(1).
Because no other provision of federal law exempts IRA's from alienation, we hold the Circuit Court ruled correctly. See Smith v. Winter Park Software Inc., 504 So.2d 523 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (); Bartlett Cooperative Association v. Patton, 239 Kan. 628, 722 P.2d 551 (1986) ().
We are aware cases decided in other states have reached a different result. E.g., Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. v. Mackey, 256 Ga. 499, 350 S.E.2d 439 (1986); Citizens Bank of Ashburn v. Shingler, 173 Ga.App. 511, 326 S.E.2d 861 (1985). However, we find these cases either inapplicable or unpersuasive.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Damast
...231 N.J.Super. 197, 555 A.2d 55 (1988); Smith v. Winter Park Software Inc., 504 So.2d 523 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Rowland v. Strickland, 294 S.C. 119, 362 S.E.2d 892 (App.1987); Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center v. Prendergast, 134 Misc.2d 93, 509 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1986). By contrast, ......
-
In re Komet, Bankruptcy No. 88-50379-C.
...pre-emption scheme of Section 514(a). See Smith v. Winter Park Software, Inc., 504 So.2d 523 (Fla.App.1987); Vann Rowland v. Strickland, 294 S.C. 119, 362 S.E.2d 892 (App.1987); Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center v. Prendergast, 134 Misc.2d 93, 509 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1986). Whether they ......
-
Duval v. Zeise
...Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). Similarly, the appellate court concluded in Rowland v. Strickland (S.C.App. 1987) 362 S.E.2d 892 that, because no federal statute prohibited alienation of an IRA, it was not exempt from levy of attachment by a judgme......
-
Williams v. Texas Commerce Bank-First State
...proceeds are not exempt under federal law. See Bartlett Cooperative Association v. Patton, 722 P.2d 551 (Kan.1986); Rowland v. Strickland, 362 S.E.2d 892 (S.C.App.1987); Smith v. Winter Park Software Inc., 504 So.2d 523 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.1987); Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center v. P......