In Re Johnson

254 B.R. 786, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 1340, 2000 WL 1692679
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York
DecidedOctober 25, 2000
Docket1-19-10159
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 254 B.R. 786 (In Re Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Johnson, 254 B.R. 786, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 1340, 2000 WL 1692679 (N.Y. 2000).

Opinion

MICHAEL J. KAPLAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Following closely on the heels of this Court’s decision in In re Lowe, 252 B.R. 614 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2000), holding a particular profit sharing fund non-exempt, comes another exemption question that appears to be, like Lowe, a matter of first impression. The Court is asked whether funds that many thousands of people have in trust under the “Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of the State of New York and Other Participating Public Jurisdictions” are exempt property in a bankruptcy case of one such person. Debtor’s counsel believes that 20% of all *788 municipal, county and state employees in this state are enrolled in plans identical to this “Deferred Compensation Plan.” And this Court is aware that such public servants are not immune from some of the woes that lead debtors to our doors.

The analysis of New York State Exemption Law as set forth in Lowe is here reaffirmed. The Court sustains the Chapter 7 Trustee’s objection to the claim of exemptions. The $4000 that this Debtor has in her trust account under this plan is not exempt and the Trustee has greater rights to those funds than the Debtor has, as discussed herein.

THE “DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN” 1 AND ITS STATUTORY BASES

The statement of “Purpose” that begins the plan recites: “The purpose of the Plan is to encourage Employees to make *789 and continue careers with the State by providing eligible employees with a convenient way to save on a regular and long-term basis and thereby provide for their retirement as set forth herein. Other Public Employers in the State can elect to provide their eligible Employees with such a savings mechanism by adopting the Plan.... The Plan and the Trust Agreement are intended to satisfy the requirements for an ‘eligible deferred corn-pensation plan’ under Section 457 of the [internal Revenue] Code.”

26 U.S.C. § 457 permits state and local governments and tax exempt organizations *790 to establish and maintain a plan under which their employees may defer limited amounts of their compensation and not have to pay income taxes thereon until they receive the compensation so deferred, That will happen, typically, when the participant attains age 70]é, or when she separates from service with the employer, or “when the participant is faced with an unforeseeable emergency (determined in the manner prescribed by the Secretary [of the Treasury] in the regulations). 2

*793 Despite its complexity, the statute has but one simple purpose: to prescribe the year in which the participant must declare the deferred compensation as part of her gross income for federal income tax purposes.

The statute requires that “A plan maintained by an eligible employer ... shall not be treated as an eligible deferred compensation plan unless all assets and income of the plan ... are held in trust for the exclusive benefit of participants and their beneficiaries.” 3

The plan itself expressly states that “Participation ... by Employees shall be wholly voluntary.” (§ 2.2 of the Plan.)

And, “A Participant may elect to defer Compensation under the Plan by authorizing, on his or her Participation Agreement, regular payroll deductions that do not in the aggregate exceed the [statutory] limitations ... [and a] Participant may discontinue, or temporarily suspend, his or her deferral of Compensation as of any Enrollment Date by giving notice thereof ... at least twenty ... days prior to such date.” (§ 3.1 of the Plan.)

The monies in the Debtor’s account derived from no source other than monies she earned as an employee, and her share of the earnings of the trust.

THE DEBTOR’S ARGUMENTS

The Debtor argues that this plan is a spendthrift trust exempt under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) § 5205(c) or under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c); that it is a retirement system exempt under the N.Y. Retirement and Social Security Law § 110 or N.Y. Insurance Law § 4607; that the Debtor has no present rights to the funds and that the Trustee, therefore, could have none; and that this is a “qualified” retirement plan, exempt under ERISA. The Court will address the arguments in a different order, for clarity’s sake.

THIS IS NOT ERISA-QUALIFIED

The Trustee has produced a letter from the Plan Administrator expressly stating it is not an ERISA-qualified plan; rather it is a qualified “deferred compensation” plan, as discussed more fully hereinafter.

The Debtor’s argument in this regard is rejected.

*794 THIS IS A “SELF-SETTLING” TRUST, NOT EXEMPT UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 541(c) or C.P.L.R. § 5205(c)

The Debtor argues that the funds are exempt under CPLR § 5205(c) (as made applicable in bankruptcy cases by N.Y. Debtor and Creditor Law § 282) because that provision states that “all property while held in trust for a judgment debtor, where the trust has been created by, or the fund so held in trust has proceeded from, a person other than the judgment debtor, is exempt from application to the satisfaction of a money judgment,” and this trust (she argues) was “created by” the State of New York and the plan trustee, not by her.

This is clearly incorrect. Black’s Law Dictionary quotes the Second Restatement of Trusts within its definition of “trust” as follows: “[A] trust involves three elements, namely, (1) a trustee, who holds the trust property and is subject to equitable duties to deal with it for the benefit of another; (2) a beneficiary, to whom the trustee owes equitable duties to deal with the trust property for this benefit; (3) trust property, which is held by the trustee for the beneficiary.” [Underline added.] Black’s Law Dictionary 1513 (7th ed.1999). Though the state has taken care of the matter of obtaining a trustee and of setting forth the trustee’s duties with regard to the trust property for the benefit of those who participate, no “trust” is created for this Debtor until she puts her property into the trust. Nothing could be more fundamental than this. Indeed, this has been codified, at least for purposes of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (“EPTL”): § 1-2.2 of the EPTL provides a definition of “creator” of a trust. “A creator is a person who makes a disposition of property.” N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 1-2.2 (McKinney 1998).

Though the definitions contained in the EPTL do not necessarily govern terms used in the CPLR or the Debtor and Creditor Law, the Debtor’s proffered interpretation of the term “creator” can have no logical merit.

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

Related

In Re Rupp
415 B.R. 72 (W.D. New York, 2008)
In Re Johnson
268 B.R. 341 (W.D. New York, 2001)
In Re Maurer
268 B.R. 335 (W.D. New York, 2001)
In Re Struebing
257 B.R. 641 (W.D. New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 B.R. 786, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 1340, 2000 WL 1692679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnson-nywb-2000.