*1 § rather V. CONCLUSION in the Rev.Stat. section 92 Act, as the Court Federal Reserve than the correctly hold that the district court We intended, Supreme Congress had divined interpreted both the federal and state stat- repeal.2 escaped had section 92 Court held Further, at issue in this case. we hold utes not ad- Bank Or. did Although Nat’l findings the district court’s of fact were that 92 relates to insur- section dress whether clear AFFIRM. not error. We ance, emphasize length the relation it did at 92 and both the between section AFFIRMED. Act, nei- the Federal Reserve Bank Act and suggests section 92 relates ther of which specific insurance or was

specifically to insurance laws.

attempt preempt to state banking, not insurance.

Both Acts concern

Moreover, “at a Congress section 92 enacted the business of insurance

time when Congress’ beyond the reach

believed Fabe, Clause.” power under Commerce SLOMA, In re Debtor. Lawrence William — at -, at 2212. As the 113 S.Ct. U.S. out, pointed “[e]ven South-East trial court LINDEN, FIRST BANK OF Underwriters, briefly altered the ern Plaintiff-Appellant, that to landscape, noted preemption attempted had to Congress ‘at no time’ v. (R3-69- insurance.” control the business of SLOMA, Lawrence William 18) 544, 1168- (citing at 64 S.Ct. at 322 U.S. Defendant-Appellee. 69). Congress and the both Before Virginia, Paul v. Supreme Court understood No. 94-6072. (8 Wall.) 19 L.Ed. 357 75 U.S. (1868), place insurance outside the Com Appeals, United States Court of Accordingly, power. when

merce Clause Eleventh Circuit. nearly 92 in Congress enacted section 1916— 30, 1995. Jan. years before South-Eastern Underwrit attempt Congress could not have been ers — it it ing regulate a business that believed Congress power regulate.

had no banking, not insurance.

concerned with nei concludes that section 92

This Court “specifically relates to the business

ther 1012(b),

insurance,” “specifi nor — at -, Fabe, cally requires,” U.S. conflicting apparently at

S.Ct. preempted. Accordingly, un

state laws be MeCarran-Ferguson, ch. Fla.Stat.

der yield Based need not to section 92.

626.988 ch.

on this determination Fla.Stat. may proscribe national-bank subsid

626.988 conducting activities

iaries from Florida, we do not reach the issues

within insurance,

whether, if such banks could sell

they nationally. could do it authorities, replete see Justice history with citations and of section 92 and the

2. All of the above Court, compacted form at opinion National Bank Act is taken id. for a unanimous Souter’s Or., -U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. ---, from Nat’l S.Ct. at 2179-82. (1993). detailed discussion For a more *2 638 insurer,

Gulf Coast and its National Union Company, negotiated Fire Insurance a settle- rights ment with Sloma to fulfill his pursuant the Act to which Sloma was to be paid structured as follows: $10,000.00 paid immediately to be 5,000.00 paid years to be after 5 $ $10,000.00 years paid to be after 10 $15,000.00 paid years to be after 15 $20,000.00 paid years 20 per paid 500.00 month to be for 20 $ years.

Upon payment of the discharged and its carrier were of obligation further or liabilities to Sloma. approved The settlement was as an Award Department Labor, the United States of 908(i). pursuant to 33 U.S.C. Jr., AL, Dinning, Demopolis, Woodrow W. Reynolds, Reynolds, employer’s Robert P. Katherine L. AL,

Huntsville, $180,- appellant. Company, paid Fire Insurance 000.00 award to Sloma of Lockett, Jr., Selma, AL, appel- A. John $10,000.00 in purchase cash to him and the lee. from Compa- Manufacturers Life Insurance ny annuity, naming an Sloma as the An- nuitant, paid for which National Manufactur- single premium. agreed ers a that he should be as follows: ANDERSON, Before and HATCHETT DYER, Judges, and Senior Circuit per years month for 20 certain $500.00 Judge. made, until 240 have been after that remaining for the life of the annui- DYER, Judge: Senior Circuit tant. judgment The district court affirmed the 5,000.00 1, on October $ adversary pro- court in an 1, on October ceeding Chapter 7 filed debtor Law- on October dispute rence William Sloma. This concerns on October the issue of Sloma’s under an to First Bank of Linden as 8, 1984, On December Sloma obtained a loan, security years prior filing seven $85,- loan from the First Bank of Linden for bankruptcy petition, claiming his ex- purpose 000.00 for the acquiring oper- emption Longshore and Harbor ating a Western Auto Store. Sloma executed Compensation an absolute collateral of the an-

nuity payments (provided to the Bank Manufacturers) Background to secure the loan. The loan repaid was structured to be accordance his shoulder in a work-relat- with that were as- employed by ed accident. He was Gulf signed to the Bank. Catering Company provided Coast ca- tering rigs. Damages services offshore oil monthly continued to receive injuries governed by Long- were from Manufacturers Compensation shore and Harbor Workers’ until Sloma’s business ven- and, seq. U.S.C. et ture failed in violation of the Review note to the Standard within the contained agreement that Manufacturers directed undisputed. are The issues in The facts personal- him payments to future forward all law, appeal questions of therefore ly- standard of review is de novo. Re (11th Associates, Club the terms of the default under *3 Due to the Cir.1992). by of the and the conversion Sloma note subject monthly to' the payments Discussion the assignment favor of interest and questions posed appeal. Two against in the suit Sloma the Bank filed First, assignment was the of the Morengo County, Alabama. Court of payment payments to the Bank Sloma against Judgment entered Sloma was $85,000.00 valid, or was the of his note for The Bank then due under the note. amount assignment anti-assignment barred under the against garnishment of a the issuance caused Longshore and Harbor provision the of. payments under to enforce Manufacturers Second, the Bank’s failure Workers’ Act. did satisfy judgment. The assignment to the the timely objection bankruptcy to the to file a directing a issued final order Circuit Court exempt by property claim of the as Sloma obligation un- Manufacturers fulfill the that challenging the validi- prevent the Bank from pay the Bank and all assignment der ty exemption. of the judgment annuity payments until the future paid. against was the Bank Sloma held Assignment made to Sloma We start with the Award History Procedural Longshore and Harbor Workers’ bankruptcy peti- Chapter 7 It filed a states: Sloma 8,1992, years after the January seven tion on employer, Catering Com- Gulf Coast Bank of his Sloma to the carrier, pany, the insurance National and a claim annuity payments. Sloma asserted Company, pay shall Union Fire Insurance exemption due from of as to Sloma, employ- to Lawrence the claimant objec- not file $180,- did ee, Manufacturers. compensation in the amount of exemption of within 30 000.00, speci- tions to Sloma’s claim settlement as a structured filed, petition above, the Bank days. payment After the of which herein fied monthly payments liability discharge of the continued to receive will in- from all future to the final insurance carrier from Manufacturers the file of compensation of judgment Circuit Court. stallments of the State closed. Lawrence will be adversary proceeding filed an Award, insur- satisfy the Gulf Coast’s To asserting pay- against the Bank Union, paid Sloma ance exempt due Manufacturers were ments from $10,000.00in obtained a cash and bankruptcy trial the court property. After a in favor of Manufacturers Slo- from judgment it deter- a final which entered annuitant, in installments payable ma as the annuity payments due from mined subsequently as- supra. as set forth constituted Manufacturers annuity, signed under compensation under the right to receive the Bank a loan which the Bank to obtain Act, and Harbor Longshore and assign- such not have made absent would initio, assignment was void ab as that such validity of this as- To determine the ment. matter of law. inter- proper must focus on the signment, we Long- pretation judgment of court affirmed the The district pro- which shore and Harbor Workers’ that the benefits court vides: assignable and that the Act were not release, or commutation exempt property assignment, No were the payable or benefits due or appeal This ensued. of Sloma. chapter, except provided by family, under this as cure the comfort of his free from the valid, chapter, shall be attacks of creditors....” such com- pensation exempt and benefits shall be purpose anti-assignability provi- levy, of creditors and from from all claims injured employ- sions of the Act to benefit an execution, remedy and attachment other ee was served and ended once the amount of debt, recovery or collection of a the award of to Sloma exemption may (Emphasis not be waived. pur- and the added). chase, behalf, $170,- in his of an 000.00. Sloma’s to the Bank of we nor counsel have found Neither repay- helpful guide precedent applica- us ment of his loan long prior made tion of this section to the unusual facts of this bankruptcy, to the was valid and the Bank is *4 case. can be no doubt that There had the payments entitled to fully the until its loan is $180,000.00 cash, employer paid in Sloma he repaid. The Bank was for substituted Sloma any.way in could have used it he desired. Cf. annuity to payments period receive over the Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pen- by of time repay- established Sloma’s loan (10th Cir.1994) (en Fund, sion 39 F.3d 1078 time, During ment schedule. Sloma had banc) (ERISA analysis). anti-alienation existing right no payments to redirect the to employer paid Here the himself. $10,000.00 purchase in cash and the of an $170,000.00. annuity for seeWe no material Object Exemption Failure to to Claim of employer paid the difference whether The second issue concerns the lack of annuity employer paid or whether the objection by the Bank to Sloma’s claim of $170,000.00 purchased with he the an- exemption 30-day pur within the time limit nuity. annuity The is a under a 4003(b). Bankruptcy suant to Rule gross paid by contract where for a sum argues that pre the Bank’s failure to do so employer, Manufacturers became liable to vents it from challenging validity now pay right certain sums to Sloma. The to exemption. disagree. We payments purchased paid receive was validity assignment The to the Bank adjudication bankruptcy. to Sloma’s payments under the and the ne- essentially repayments cessity objecting it in to of the sum with installments which the annui- proceedings are Power, interrelated. We have held ty purchased. was See In Re 115 (7th Cir.1940). that the is valid and not barred F.2d 73 Sloma received by the Act. Since lack Sloma’s of interest in by benefits of under the Act assigned property does not purchase establish a proper exemption, basis for a claim of there in cash. creditor, was no need for the a secured object. to The consensual lien establishes received Sloma un the creditor’s property. interest It is der the contract were not due and well established law that the trustee in bank- Act; payable they were ruptcy only takes the title of the debtor in party, made to him a third Manufacturers. property of the estate. Pearlman v. Reli- Supreme What the Court said in v. McIntosh Co., 132, 135, ance Insurance 371 U.S. 83 122, 125, Aubrey, S.Ct. 561, 563, 185 U.S. 232, 234, (1962). S.Ct. Having L.Ed.2d 190 (1902), up L.Ed. 834 sums issue property transferred his to a interest credi- case, exemption provided by that “the the act tor, a debtor exempt proper- cannot claim as protects only fund while the course of ty that he does not own. pensioner transmission to the [annuitant]. money When has him been it has Conclusion benefit,’ wholly ‘inured to his and is liable opportunity presents assignment by seizure as itself. The Sloma to the Bank of pensioner, however, may money use the Linden of the manner, for his own anti-assign- benefit and to se- was valid and not barred customer, long-time tending credit to its Longshore and Har- provisions ment Bank took a risk. bor Similarly, I F.2d Delgado, 967 file an the Bank to no need for There case that the believe exemption of an claim objection to Sloma’s may “receive a windfall not valid. Sloma property claimed did not own he because recovering installments] [the exempt. proceeds having spent the loan which have REVERSED. But, injured just as the repaid.” not been Delgado was entitled to the employee windfall, to the windfall Sloma is entitled HATCHETT, dissenting: Judge, it 916. When secured under 33 U.S.C. “help- is no that there states assignment of the annu- loan with an application in the guide us precedent ful ity he received as facts of this case.” the unusual this section to Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Com- ease from I, that a recent believe sim- pensation the First Bank of Linden Circuit, Delgado, Re the Tenth pay off. ply a risk that did. not took (10th Cir.1992), In Del- is instructive. provides: ... “No Section employee received gado, an payable compensation or benefits due or compensation settlement sum workman’s *5 majority emphasizes ... shall be valid.” The deposit placed in a certificate she which Apparently, it payable.” “due or the words took out a years. She also maturing in five words mean that that these three believes security the bank a granted in she loan which assignment of only an section 916 invalidates assigned the in the certificate interest in to be received compensation that is The Tenth Circuit as collateral. certificate explained disagree I for the reasons future. in security interest bank’s held that the Delgado,1 in under Kan- enforceable was not certificate assignment of work- prohibiting statute sas’s majority’s interpretation Even under the The Tenth Cir- compensation benefits. er’s I that the of section believe that: explained cuit majority The ex- ease was invalid. this compensation plains: provision defines the Kansas payments and no- including the actual as em- that had the There can be no doubt exemp- that the there a limitation

where is cash, he ployer paid Sloma only security interests or applies tion way he desired. have used it could before the com- assignments entered into employer paid Sloma Here the recog- actually paid- [W]e pensation is purchase of an and the cash employee] will re- [the nize that $170,000.00. no mate- We see for recovering the certifi- a windfall ceive employer paid whether the rial difference having spent deposit funds cate of employer annuity or whether the have not been proceeds which the loan pur- he with which paid Sloma situation, a bank such a repaid. To avoid annuity_ payments re- chased the concerning the inquire would need annuity con- ceived will serve as funds which source of payable under not due and tract were case, though, the Bank In this for a loan. com- the workmen’s fully aware that Slo- Thus, majority argues that because placed in the certifi- pensation award was him, annuity for purchased an employer security. ma’s served as deposit cate of obligations, Sloma thereby satisfying its as to structuring transaction so By that annui- assign the installments able to ex- compensation funds before control the agreed upon, compensation, or Delgado ex- Admittedly, statute in 1. the Kansas " " awarded, Delgado, adjudged paid.' compensation ... provided: pressly 'no ... ” Thus, emphasized Tenth Circuit Delgado, 1468. assignable.' 967 F.2d paid[] shall be " holding. arriving at its past tense in expressly 'claim[s] included It sum, ty.2 That, happened is not what I believe that has incorrectly interpreted § case. 916 as only invalidating assignments of compensa- fact, findings In its court tense). paid (past tion that has not been provided for the es- found: “The settlement Instead, the statute should be read accor- by Manufac- tablishment of an issued (“Manufac- approach dance with the Tenth Circuit’s Company turers Life Insurance turers”). Delgado. I also believe that even under the policy provided majority’s interpretation monthly payments ... of section Sloma would receive facts of this policy compensa- ... case indicate that the sum ex- tense), pressly provided paid (past tion had not been that National Union was the Thus, therefore, policy.”3 employer owner of the was not valid. Sloma; purchased never an in-

stead, carrier, employer’s Na- Union, purchased

tional in which ownership.

it maintained Because of this difference, I

subtle believe that Sloma was receiving compensation

still in the course of payable” majority’s

“due or inter-

pretation of section 916. annuity policy was the result approved by

settlement that was the United Department

States of Labor to 33 908(i). 908(i)(3) provides:

U.S.C. Section approved

“A settlement under this section liability discharge

shall Thus,

or or both.” “Upon payment

correct when it stated: and its carri- discharged

er were obligation further employer, liabilities to Sloma.” Sloma’s Union, and its had $180,000

not made the full of the

because National Union owned the

policy. merely stood as an intended party beneficiary

third con-

tract between National Union and Manufac- result, $180,000

turers. aAs had not tense) paid (past

been to Sloma. Sloma was

simply entitled to the installments of the contract, which National Union

owned; thus, process he was still

receiving “compensation or benefits due or Therefore,

payable." assigned

could not be to the First

Linden. Clarke, (5th "An contract is the exact inverse of a Ins. Co. v. 998 F.2d life sum, lump insurance contract. Cir.1993). return for a company typically promises the insurance periodic payments the annuitant that will contin- 3. "The court's factual determinations ue until the death of annuitant. The subject clearly to review under the erroneous sum annuitant, and, expectancy is determined the life Associates, standard.” In Re Club 956 F.2d case, the insurance com- (11th Cir.1992). showing No of clear pany gambles that the annuitants will die regarding error this fact has been made. predictions.” Annuity actuarial Variable Life