– Leaf Funding, Inc. v. Simmons Medical Clinic
116666
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Leaf Funding obtained a $120,324.59 default judgment against Michael Simmons in federal court (Delaware) and domesticated/revived it in Crawford County, Kansas.
- Leaf Funding served garnishments on two Girard, KS banks; the banks answered showing several accounts in Simmons' name (one joint with his daughter).
- Simmons conceded the business account was not exempt, but claimed deposits in two personal accounts were private disability insurance proceeds (Northwestern Mutual) exempt under K.S.A. 60-2313(a)(1); he also claimed one joint account belonged solely to his daughter.
- The district court found the joint account was the daughter’s funds, allowed garnishment of the business account, and reserved ruling on the alleged disability exemption pending briefs.
- The district court ruled that K.S.A. 60-2313(a)(1) unambiguously exempts only the specific types of benefits enumerated by statute and does not extend to private disability insurance proceeds; Simmons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Simmons' Argument | Leaf Funding's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether funds paid from private disability insurance are exempt from garnishment under K.S.A. 60-2313(a)(1) | The statute’s opening word “Any” and its generic list (pension, annuity, retirement, disability, death) mean all such benefits — including private disability — are covered | The statute lists specific statutory benefit programs; the exemption applies only to the specifically enumerated benefits, not private insurance proceeds | Private disability insurance proceeds are not exempt under K.S.A. 60-2313(a)(1); garnishment allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Decker & Mattison Co. v. Wilson, 273 Kan. 402 (exempt funds retain exemption if readily identifiable after deposit or conversion)
- Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group, 284 Kan. 547 (when statute is plain and unambiguous, courts give effect to its express language)
- Whaley v. Sharp, 301 Kan. 192 (court should not read into statute words not present; ambiguity identifies need for canons)
- Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 303 Kan. 358 (statutory construction principles for discerning legislative intent)
- Iron Mound v. Nueterra Healthcare Mgmt., 298 Kan. 412 (written instrument/statute not ambiguous unless reasonably susceptible to two meanings)