324 N.E.2d 576 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1975
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal; the transcript of the docket; the journal entries; the original papers from the Hamilton County Municipal Court; and the assignment of error, briefs, and arguments of counsel.
The defendant, the appellant herein, maintained a checking account with the Central Trust Bank of Cincinnati, the garnishee herein. His only source of income is poor relief and general welfare benefits of $333 per month for himself, his wife and seven minor children. The bulk of such benefits, in December 1973 and January 1974, were deposited to his checking account. Pursuant to a judgment entered against him in favor of a creditor, the plaintiff, appellee herein, an order of garnishment against the checking account was duly issued and served, and the garnishee ordered to pay into court $253.36. The appeal is before us on a question of law raised by the judgment debtor whose welfare funds were thus subjected to garnishment.
Preliminarily, in order to dispose of what might otherwise appear an anomaly between our consideration of the *384
appeal in this case and our holding in English v. Dunn (1971),
Defendant's sole assignment of error asserts that the court erred to his prejudice in overruling his motion to dismiss the proceedings and the order issued therein, where such motion was predicated on the exemption of his poor relief funds from attachment or garnishment on the authority of R. C.
It is abundantly clear that the law of Ohio exempts a certain class of property from attachment for a debt of the recipient. 23 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 258, Exemptions, Section 27. The class includes pensions and allowances under public employees' and state teachers' retirement *385
laws, unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children and the aged, etc. Id. The Supreme Court of the United States has acknowledged the inclusion within the class of certain social security benefits, veterans compensation and insurance allowances, and veterans' disability benefits. Philpott v.Essex County Welfare Board (1973),
Our ultimate consideration is whether these funds may be said to retain their privileged character, consistent with legislative intent, once they are deposited to the recipients' checking account, or, conversely, whether such act of deposit partakes of a "permanent investment" of the funds, an act which arguably terminates the exemption. In Philpott, supra, the Supreme Court analyzed the issue in the context of savings deposits. There, the exempt property was defined in terms of "moneys paid" (
It is obvious that our holding requires — as it may in most cases of this sort — the tracing of monies on deposit to determine the amount attributable to current poor relief and welfare funds i. e., those deposits deriving directly *386 from poor relief and welfare payments made to the recipient within a period not exceeding 59 days from the date of the order of garnishment) which are exempt from the order of garnishment. Since the state of the record does not permit this court to make that determination, the order overruling the motion below is hereby reversed and the cause is accordingly remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SHANNON, P. J., PALMER and STRAUSBAUGH, JJ., concur.
STRAUSBAUGH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the First Appellate District. *387