Clark v. Rameker
2014 U.S. LEXIS 4166, 189 L. Ed. 2d 157, 134 S. Ct. 2242 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Funds held in inherited individual retirement accounts (IRAs) do not qualify as "retirement funds" for purposes of the federal bankruptcy exemption under 11 U. S. C. §522(b)(3)(C) because their legal characteristics indicate they are not objectively set aside for the holder's retirement.
Facts:
- In 2000, Ruth Heffron established a traditional IRA and named her daughter, Heidi Heffron-Clark, as the sole beneficiary of the account.
- When Ms. Heffron died in 2001, her IRA, then worth just over $450,000, passed to her daughter, Heidi Heffron-Clark, becoming an inherited IRA.
- Heidi Heffron-Clark elected to take monthly distributions from the inherited IRA.
- By October 2010, the inherited IRA was worth roughly $300,000.
- In October 2010, Heidi Heffron-Clark and her husband, Brandon C. Clark, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.
Procedural Posture:
- Heidi Heffron-Clark and her husband, Brandon C. Clark, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, identifying the inherited IRA as exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U. S. C. §522(b)(3)(C).
- William J. Rameker, the bankruptcy trustee, and unsecured creditors of the estate objected to the claimed exemption.
- The Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (In re Clark, 450 B. R. 858 (WD Wisc. 2011)) agreed with the trustee and creditors, disallowing the exemption.
- The District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (In re Clark, 466 B. R. 135 (WD Wisc. 2012)) reversed the Bankruptcy Court, holding that the exemption covered funds originally accumulated for retirement purposes.
- The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (In re Clark, 714 F. 3d 559 (2013)) reversed the District Court's judgment, concluding that inherited IRAs represent an opportunity for current consumption, not a fund of retirement savings.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Seventh Circuit’s ruling and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Chilton.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do funds held in an inherited individual retirement account (IRA) qualify as "retirement funds" within the meaning of 11 U. S. C. §522(b)(3)(C)'s bankruptcy exemption?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No, funds held in inherited individual retirement accounts (IRAs) do not qualify as "retirement funds" within the meaning of 11 U. S. C. §522(b)(3)(C)'s bankruptcy exemption. The Court interpreted "retirement funds" to mean sums of money objectively set aside for the day an individual stops working, and determined that an objective inquiry into the legal characteristics of the account, rather than the debtor's subjective purpose, is required. The Court identified three key legal characteristics of inherited IRAs that distinguish them from traditional and Roth IRAs, which are quintessential retirement funds: First, holders of inherited IRAs may never invest additional money into the account, unlike traditional/Roth IRAs designed for continuous savings (26 U. S. C. §219(d)(4)). Second, holders of inherited IRAs are required to withdraw money from the accounts (either the entire balance within five years or annual minimum distributions), leading to their diminution regardless of the holder's proximity to retirement (26 U. S. C. §§408(a)(6), 401(a)(9)(B)). Finally, the holder of an inherited IRA may withdraw the entire balance at any time for any purpose without penalty, whereas traditional/Roth IRAs impose a 10% penalty for pre-59½ withdrawals, incentivizing long-term savings (26 U. S. C. §72(t)(2)(A)(ii)). This reading aligns with the Bankruptcy Code's purpose of balancing creditor and debtor interests by protecting essential needs for retirement, not providing a "free pass" for immediate consumption. The Court rejected petitioners' arguments, including that funds were retirement funds because they were originally set aside for retirement (which would render the statutory term "retirement funds" superfluous) and that the absence of "debtor's interest" indicated coverage for others' retirement (misinterpreting that phrase's role in other exemptions).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the "retirement funds" exemption in bankruptcy, establishing an objective test based on the account's legal characteristics rather than the debtor's subjective intent or the funds' original purpose. The ruling narrows the types of assets debtors can shield from creditors, particularly inherited funds that lack the structural impediments to early withdrawal found in traditional retirement vehicles. It ensures that bankruptcy exemptions align with their intended purpose of providing for basic needs post-bankruptcy, rather than enabling immediate consumption of easily accessible funds. Future cases will likely apply this objective, characteristic-based analysis to determine the exempt status of other fund types under similar statutory language.
