In re Mooney, 503 B.R. 916

Debtor Denise Mooney filed a Chapter 7 petition on June 27, 2013.
Debtor listed a health savings account (HSA) valued at $17,570.93 on Schedule B and claimed the full value as exempt under OCGA § 44-13-100(a)(2)(C) & (E).
Chapter 7 Trustee objected to the exemption.
Debtor is self-employed as a physical therapist and owner of Rehab Specialists of South GA, Inc.
HSA opened in 2008; funded from Debtor’s personal account; used primarily for medical expenses; one $1,000 nonqualified withdrawal in 2011; Debtor received no notices of improper use.
Hearing held November 12, 2013; court sustained the Trustee’s exemption objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HSA is exempt under OCGA § 44-13-100(a)(2)(C)&(E).	Mooney contends HSA is an illness benefit under the statute.	Trustee argues HSA is not an illness benefit or wage substitute, so not exempt.	HSA not exempt under OCGA § 44-13-100(a)(2)(C)&(E).
Whether HSA functions as an illness benefit or wage substitute under Georgia law.	HSA resembles an illness benefit and fits the wage-substitute rationale.	HSA lacks wage-substitution characteristics and is not an illness benefit.	HSA does not constitute an illness benefit or wage substitute under the statute.
Whether principles from Silliman v. Cassell and Rousey v. Jacoway apply to the HSA exemption.	HSA should be treated like a protected wage substitute based on these authorities.	HSA does not fit the wage-substitute framework after Cassell/Rousey analysis.	HSA does not fall within the wage-substitute framework; not exempt.

Silliman v. Cassell, 292 Ga. 464, 738 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 2013) (limits exemption to payments that substitute for wages; framework for illness benefits)
Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320, 125 S. Ct. 1561 (U.S. 2005) (IRAs as wage substitutes; payments akin to wages or illness benefits)
In re McFarland, 500 B.R. 279 (Bankr.S.D. Ga. 2013) (annuity not exempt where not a wage substitute or necessary for support)