Dillabaugh v. Ellerton
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1046
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dillabaugh obtained a judgment against Ellerton and sought to garnish Sefton's obligation to Ellerton.
- Sefton owed Ellerton a future retirement obligation totaling $839,832.
- Ellerton claimed the obligation was exempt from garnishment under section 13-54-102(1)(s) as payable from a retirement plan.
- The trial court, without an evidentiary hearing, found the obligation fit the retirement-plan exemption and exempt from garnishment.
- Dillabaugh appeals, arguing that 'retirement plan' must have attributes of ERISA or tax-qualified plans, while the court reviews de novo but defers to the trial court's factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes a 'retirement plan' under 13-54-102(1)(s)? | Dillabaugh argues retirement plan requires ERISA/tax-qualified attributes. | Ellerton contends the term is broader and not limited to ERISA-like plans. | Retirement plan is interpreted broadly; includes non-ERISA retirement-style obligations. |
| Was Sefton's obligation payable from a retirement plan? | Obligation is not a true retirement plan; not pension or deferred-compensation. | Obligation is payable from a retirement plan; evidence shows retirement-related features. | Yes; the obligation was property held in or payable from a retirement plan. |
| What is the proper standard of review for statutory interpretation here? | Court should strictly apply statutory definitions to require ERISA-like attributes. | Court should read the statute according to its plain, broad language and liberal exemptions. | Statutory construction is de novo, with factual findings reviewed for clear error. |
| Did the trial court need remand for further factual development on the retirement-plan issue? | Remand may be necessary to clarify definitions and vesting. | No remand needed; record supports a broad interpretation and no further facts are needed. | No remand required; the evidence supports the broader interpretation and the court properly decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ludwig, 345 B.R. 310 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006) (narrow ERISA-like interpretation of retirement-plan exemption)
- Bly v. Story, 241 P.3d 529 (Colo. 2010) (statutory interpretation aiding plain-meaning approach)
- In re Larson, 260 B.R. 174 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2001) (liberal interpretation of exemption laws in Colorado)
- People v. Owens, 219 P.3d 379 (Colo. App. 2009) (ambiguity concepts regarding 'including' and 'any' in statutes)
- Tourdot v. Rockford Health Plans, Inc., 439 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2006) (caution against using noscitur a sociis to create ambiguity)