Fraser v. Deppe

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fraser v. Deppe

770 S.W.2d 479, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 584, 1989 WL 44224

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 1989

DocketNo. 55516

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 770 S.W.2d 479 (Fraser v. Deppe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fraser v. Deppe, 770 S.W.2d 479, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 584, 1989 WL 44224 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, appearing pro se, appeals the order of the trial court executing on defendant's savings and checking accounts because the monies contained therein are exempt from garnishment pursuant to § 513.430(10)(a), RSMo 1986, (exemption of a person’s right to receive social security benefits, unemployment compensation or local public assistance). Defendant claims the money contained in his bank accounts consisted entirely of his social security benefits.

Once social security funds have been paid to the recipient, the funds are his personal property and are no longer exempt from execution. Owens v. Owens, 591 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Mo.App.1979). Defendant’s point is, therefore, without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, appearing pro se, appeals the order of the trial court executing on defendant's savings and checking accounts because the monies contained therein are exempt from garnishment pursuant to § 513.430(10)(a), RSMo 1986, (exemption of a person’s right to receive social security benefits, unemployment compensation or local public assistance). Defendant claims the money contained in his bank accounts consisted entirely of his social security benefits.

Once social security funds have been paid to the recipient, the funds are his personal property and are no longer exempt from execution. Owens v. Owens, 591 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Mo.App.1979). Defendant’s point is, therefore, without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 S.W.2d 479, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 584, 1989 WL 44224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraser-v-deppe-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack