Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005)
Primary Holding
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) can be exempted from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E), allowing debtors to retain these assets rather than having them divided among creditors.
In the case of Rousey v. Jacoway, the Supreme Court decided that money in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) can be protected from being taken by creditors during bankruptcy. This is important because it means that if someone faces financial trouble and has to declare bankruptcy, they can keep their retirement savings instead of losing them to pay off debts. This case is relevant for anyone considering bankruptcy, as it helps ensure that they can still have some financial security for their future.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005), the underlying dispute arose when Richard and Betty Jo Rousey, after being terminated from their employment at Northrup Grumman Corp., received lump-sum distributions from their employer-sponsored pension plans. They subsequently deposited these funds into Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) in their names. The Rouseys later filed a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas, seeking to exempt portions of their IRAs from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(10)(E), which allows debtors to exempt certain payments related to pension and similar plans. The procedural history began with the Rouseys' bankruptcy filing, where they claimed their IRAs as exempt assets. Jill R. Jacoway was appointed as the Chapter 7 Trustee to oversee the bankruptcy estate's liquidation. The Trustee contested the Rouseys' exemption claims, leading to a series of rulings in the bankruptcy court and subsequent appeals. The case ultimately reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled on the exemption issue, prompting the Rouseys to seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. The relevant background context includes the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows debtors to exempt certain assets to protect them from creditors during bankruptcy proceedings. The specific exemption in question, 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(10)(E), is designed to provide debtors with a means of retaining necessary funds for their support and that of their dependents. The case raised significant questions about the treatment of IRAs under bankruptcy law, particularly regarding whether these retirement accounts could be exempted in the same manner as other pension-related assets.
Whether debtors can exempt assets in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(10)(E).
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- December 1, 2004
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Thomas
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005)
Consumer LostWhen a litigant's recovery constitutes income, the portion of that recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee is included in the litigant's gross income under the Internal Revenue Code.
Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U.S. 40 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Tax Court's practice of withholding special trial judges' reports from the public and excluding them from the record on appeal violates the principles of due process and transparency in judicial proceedings.
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where state-court losers seek to challenge state court judgments in federal court, and it does not extend to other situations that would override preclusion law or allow federal courts to dismiss cases in deference to state court actions.