TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Perry

In the Matter of Calvin Clay PERRY, Bankrupt

In re Perry, 225 F. Supp. 481 (N.D. Ohio 1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Federal District Courts
Decided
September 27, 1963
Docket
No. B63-398
Judges
Joseph H. Ellison
Citations
225 F. Supp. 48192 Ohio Law. Abs. 48613 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 8231963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10217

Opinion — Jones

JONES, District Judge.

This is a petition for review filed by Calvin Clay Perry who was adjudicated a bankrupt on January 24, 1963. His schedules showed he owned no homestead. Listed as an asset under Schedule E-2 was an income tax refund for 1962 in the sum of $387.00.

The precise question presented here is whether a bankrupt may claim as exempt property a Federal income tax refund in lieu of homestead under Ohio Revised Code, § 2329.81.

It is uniformly held that the purpose of an exemption statute is not for the personal privilege of the debtor but for the benefit of his family who may *482 be destitute and the public who might otherwise be burdened with the support of an insolvent debtor’s family. The social policy is to have the burden fall on the creditor rather than on the debt- or’s family or on the public. O.R.C. § 2329.81 confers an absolute right to an exemption not exceeding $500. in value where the debtor is not the owner of a homestead. One exception is that a debt- or may not select an exemption “from money, salary, or wages due to him from any person, partnership, or corporation”.

Since this statutory provision is an exception to the statutory exemption right, it must be strictly construed against the judgment creditor.

Whether a debtor could claim as an exemption a debt owed to him by the United States Government was decided in Troutman v. Eichar, 64 Ohio App. 415 , 28 N.E.2d 953 (1940) where the Court held, in Syllabus 4:

“The United States Government is not a ‘person * * * or corporation’ within the purview of the exceptions to the exemption statute (Section 11738, General Code), which provides in part that such ‘selection and exemption shall not be made * * * from money, salary or wages due to him from any person, partnership or corporation’.”

This case was followed by this Court in In re Walker, 94 F.Supp. 49 (D.C. 1950), where it was held that proceeds paid to a bankrupt from his veteran’s life insurance policy were exempt.

These two eases both held that “person” or “corporation” does not mean or include a sovereign government.

Since the law of Ohio is settled on this matter, I find that a tax refund, being a debt due from the United States, does not come within the exception in the exemption statute, and therefore may be claimed as an exemption by the bankrupt pursuant to the provisions of O. R.C. § 2329.81.

Consequently, the order of the Referee approving the Trustee’s report of exemptions is overruled, and the petitioner’s objections to the Trustee’s report of exemption is approved.

It follows that the income tax refund for 1962 in the sum of $387.00 may be claimed as an exemption by the bankrupt.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1964: 11975: 11980: 41981: 41982: 11983: 11984: 119642026peak 1980 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Allison31 B.R. 916 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983)
  2. Thorp Credit & Thrift Co. v. Pommerer (In re Pommerer)10 B.R. 935 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1981)
  3. In re Dipalma24 B.R. 385 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)
  4. Curry v. Associates Financial Services (In re Curry)5 B.R. 282 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)
  5. Centran Bank of Akron v. Ambrose (In re Ambrose)55 A.L.R. Fed. 342 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)
  6. Fisher v. Liberty Loan Corp. (In re Fisher)6 B.R. 206 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)

Most recent

  1. In re Law37 B.R. 501 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1984)
  2. In re Allison31 B.R. 916 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983)
  3. In re Dipalma24 B.R. 385 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)
  4. Thorp Credit & Thrift Co. v. Pommerer (In re Pommerer)10 B.R. 935 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1981)
  5. In re Cunningham17 B.R. 463 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1981)
  6. Marinski v. Firstmark Finance Co. (In re Marinski)9 B.R. 579 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Troutman v. Eichar, 28 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio Ct. App. 1940) 5
In re Walker, 94 F. Supp. 49 (N.D. Ohio 1950) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list