*1
In re Calvin WALSH and Cleve
Lynn Walsh, Debtors.
Randy Royal, Appellant
(Trustee/ Obj ector), Lynn
Cleve Calvin Walsh Jennifer
Walsh, Appellees (Debtors/Respon
dents).
No. 03-164.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of
Aug. 2004. Royal,
Representing Appellant: Randy L. Greybull, Wyoming. Appellees: R.
Representing Stephen Win- P.C., Winship Casper, ship Winship, & Wyoming. HILL, C.J., GOLDEN,
Before KITE, LEHMAN, VOIGT, JJ. VOIGT, Justice. bankruptcy petition, In their Cleve (the Lynn
Calvin Walsh Jennifer Walsh Walshes) seventy- an exemption claimed percent garnished five of the funds bankruptcy their bank The trustee objected the claimed exemption. Court, Bankruptcy the Dis- United States Wyoming, trict of then Court certified to this following questions, which we have agreed answer: funds Are derived from a debtor’s deposited wages and garnish- account exempt bank *2 2 ¶ Franscell, 169, 9, 1226, Wyo. § 1—15— Ann. 2002 WY 57 P.3d
ment under
Stat.
40-14-505(b)
(LexisNexis
(Wyo.2002)
Wyoming
(quoting
1230
Commu
408 or
2003)?
nity College
Casper Community
Com’n v.
¶¶
86,
16-18,
College
2001
31
WY
P.3d
Dist.
what
yes,
If
under
circumstances?
will,
1242,
however,
(Wyo.2001)).
1249
We
particularly pertinent
rules
note a few
FACTS
primary
legis
is
construction. Our
concern
29, 2003,
filed
April
the Walshes
On
[¶ 2]
intent,
lative
which intent must be ascer
bankruptcy petition. On the
7
Chapter
from the
of the statute.
Id.
tained
words
date,
garnished
creditor
same
unnecessary
statutory
is
where
Construction
money in the ac-
The
their bank
language
unambiguous.
Id. The intent of
is
solely
$2,541.18—was
derived
count —
unambiguous
statute is determined from
earnings with
personal service
Mr. Walsh’s
ordinary
meaning
and
the
obvious
objected
The
has
to
employer.
trustee
¶
105,
Wilson,
6,
used. In re
2003 WY
words
Ann
Stat.
claim under
the Walshes’
669,
(Wyo.2003) (quoting Wyoming
75 P.3d
(LexisNexis 2003)
seventy-
Haglund, 982
pt.
Transp. v.
P.2d
De
the
percent of
funds are
five
“
(Wyo.1999)).
words
‘When the
are
garnishment.
pertinent portion
of that
unambiguous,
an im
and
a court risks
clear
reads as follows:
statute
views,
of its own
permissible substitution
(a)
post judgment garnishment
A writ of
others,
legisla
for
intent of the
those of
attaching
any
interpret
ture if
effort is made
portion
of the defendant’s
shall attach
any
on
other than
construe statutes
basis
unpaid
earnings,
accrued
”
Pagel,
legislature.’
language invoked
(b)
of this
specified
subsection
section.
¶
169, 9,
(quoting
nishment. Justice, (b) LEHMAN, dissenting portion aggregate filed a The maximum HILL, Justice, opinion disposable earnings with individual which which Chief of an joined. is the lesser of: are hourly wage (25%) minimum the federal (i) of defen- times percent Twenty-five (6)(a)(l) week; prescribed section earnings for that disposable dant’s Act of Fair Labor Standards 206(a)(1), 29, § in effect at the tit. U.S.C. (ii) defendant’s The amount payable; time the are earnings computed aggregate (iii)In pay for a the case of thirty times exceeds that week week, the adminis- period other than hourly wage pre- minimum the federal multiple by rule a prescribe trator shall Fair Labor Standards by the scribed hourly wage minimum the federal 206(a)(1), 1938, 29 U.S.C. Act of to that set forth equivalent effect pay- at the time effect (b)(ii) paragraph of this section. or, any pay able, in ease of *4 execute, (c)No make, or en- court week, any equivalent a period other than process or in violation force an order by the ad- prescribed multiple thereof section. this Wyoming Uniform of the ministrator manner Code Consumer Credit majority concludes that when The [¶ 11] 14—505(b)(iii). by provided W.S. personal services are periodic 40— character as paid, lose their (c) in- specifically is garnishee a Unless Wyoming’s statutory exemp- property under plaintiff that the by formed affidavit argument, In of this tion scheme. periodic earnings from defendant has other § majority spe- 1-15-408 points out that garnishee and than from the sources other wage garnishment ap- cifically provides that thereof, garnishee shall the amount unpaid” disposable and plies only to “accrued becoming defendant’s treat surmises, therefore, majority earnings. The the defendant’s garnishee due from exception provi- of some limited that with the purpose earnings for the aggregate entire Wyo. Ann. accounts found Stat. sions for gar- sum attached computing (LexisNexis 2003), -111 §§ and 1-20-110 nishment. exemption Wyoming for cash there is no sets forth: Section 40-14-505 improper to accounts.1 I feel it is or bank (a) part: purposes of For the exemption specified within if the determine (i) earnings” means that “Disposable apply upon § based the va- 1-15-408 should part of an individual judgment a garies and arbitrariness of where remaining the deduction from after wages are located at the time of required by earnings of amounts those garnishment. It makes service of writ withheld; and law to be judgment to allow a creditor little sense (ii) any legal means or “Garnishment” until wait serve equitable procedure places such wages creditor required to earnings of an individual are (or his account payment into his wallet bank payment of a be withheld for debt. otherwise) and deposit or via automatic (b) thereby percent of those aggregate receive one hundred part of the The maximum § purpose 1-15- wages circumventing the an individual for disposable subjected gar- any which is 408. workweek payment judg- of a to enforce
nishment
addition,
1-15-408 re-
because
sale,
arising
a consumer credit
ment
services,”
“earnings
personal
fers to
lease,
may not
or consumer loan
consumer
terminology found within
for that
definition
the lesser of:
exceed
(LexisNex-
l-15-102(a)(vi)
Wyo.
Stat.
(25%)
(i) Twenty-five percent
2003)
of his dis-
applied
this court.
must be
week;
that
or
posable earnings for
“earnings
personal
“Earnings” or
(ii)
compensation paid
pay-
services” means
amount which his
The
services,
personal
whether denom-
thirty
able for
earnings for that week exceed
process
Wyo.
1-20-111
exempts
while
Stat. Ann.
retire-
cial
Stat. Ann.
1-20-110
ment,
contributions to medical sav-
pension,
annuity
execu-
does the same for
accounts from
tion, attachment,
ings
any
judi-
accounts.
commission,
ordinary
salary,
Resort to the
and obvious common
bo-
wages,
mated as
“accrued,”
meaning
“payable,”
nus,
any pension or retirement
of the terms
proceeds of
compensation plan or
“paid”
help.
is of little
The American
benefits or deferred
(Second
Edition,
Heritage Dictionary
College
otherwise.
1991) defines “accrue” as: “3. Law. To be-
Thus,
majority’s ultimate determina-
Id.
permanent
right.”
come an enforceable or
legislature’s defi-
ignores the
improperly
tion
authority
“pay-
That same
defines the term
services,”
“earnings from
nition of
Requiring payment
able” as: “1.
on a certain
earnings may also be
that such
specifically
date;
Thus,
“payable”
“accrued” and
due.”
simply “accrued
“paid” and need not be
virtually
meaning.
the same
On the
payable.”
hand,
Heritage
Dictio-
American
manner,
parallel
In a somewhat
nary
“paid”
“[p]ast
defines
as the
tense and
“garnishee”
also uses the term
pay”
“pay”
word
as: “1.
participle of
and the
“employer.”2 There
rather than the term
give money
goods
To
return for
fore,
recognize
should
this court
Therefore,
appears
services rendered.”
l-15-502(a) (LexisNexis 2003),
§Ann.
“ac-
distinction between
words
continuing garnish
addressing
crued,”
“paid”
timing
“payable,” and
is one
ments,
“garnishee
is an
is limited to a
who
alone,
*5
definitively
in
which does not
aid us
indicating
judgment
employer of the
debtor”
§
interpreting
1-15^408.
spec
to
legislature
knew how
that the
employer” had it desired to
ify
“garnishee
§
The fact that
1-15-408 uses the
[¶ 15]
Hence,
legisla
§ 1-15-408.
do so within
“employer”
“garnishee”
term
and not
does
“garnishee”
opposed
as
ture’s use of the term
my analysis.
not assist me
It is true that
§in
1-15-408 must infer that
“employer”
statute,
garnishment
§
continuing
1—15—
to include
“garnishee” was meant
the term
502(a),
garnishment
“garnishee
limits
to a
depository institutions.
banks and
debtor,”
employer
an
who is
Furthermore, exemption statutes are to be
legislature
perhaps implying that the
meant
liberally in favor of
construed
the debtor
depository
to include banks and other
insti-
purposes.
accomplish their beneficial
order to
§
tutions within the ambit of
1-15-408.
Lindell-Heasier,
748,
154 B.R.
751
In re
However,
1-20-111,
§§
1-20-110 and
(D.Wyo.1992);
Barney,
v.
842 F.2d
Johnston
ac-
provide
for retirement fund
(10th Cir.1988);
1221,
Lingle State
savings
and contributions to medical
counts
Podolak,
392,
(Wyo.
740 P.2d
393-94
Bank
accounts, specifically
those
enumerate
(7th
Barker,
1987);
191, 196
In re
768 F.2d
execution,
“exempt from
attach-
accounts are
Cir.1985); Wright
v. Union Central Life ment,
any
process
or
is-
Co.,
273, 278-79,
196,
61 S.Ct.
Ins.
311 U.S.
Thus,
simi-
sued
court.”3
one could
(1940).
200,
P.2d 773-76 object [exemption] statute Pellish, Cooper, Wyo. see Bros. enjoy- is not to secure to the debtor (1934). Further, purpose P.2d 607 property ment of of that character at the explanation Wyoming’s with our creditors, consistent expense prevent of his but to ring exemption. We said: wedding being stripped of those articles of convenience, utility and under the limit- approach is conclude this limited We prescribed, requisite ed value for the general purposes and consistent with the family in main- comfort of himself and allowing guidelines debtors file behind taining every a household in condition of protection. 4 bankruptcy Cottier ¶ (15th ed.) life. ex- Bankruptcy at 522.01 rev.
plains: ¶¶ Winters, In re 12-13. component
A of an individ- fundamental Furthermore, pointed out bankruptcy ual fresh start footnote 1 of Hancock v. Stockmens Bank & *6 ability the to set aside certain debtor’s Co., (Wyo.1987), Trust 739 P.2d exempt of property as from the claims (Miehie Ann. 1-17-411 Stat. Cum. Exemption property, to- creditors. language Supp.1986) provided applicable the claims, discharge of lets gether with the concerning garnishment exemption for earn- appropriate the maintain an stan- debtor ings personal services rendered until it living goes as he or forward dard of she legislature to its was amended the bankruptcy case. after the present form. ¶ (Miehie Bankruptcy Cum.Supp.1986) provided 1.03[2][a] that: Cottier recognizes that: also any property The court order of the judgment money due him in the debtor Bankruptcy
Chapter 7 of the
Code is
person,
of either himself or another
fully
hands
“Liquidation” and the title
entitled
law,
applied
exempt
to be
toward
expresses
purpose
chapter’s
the
of the
judgment. Upon
the satisfaction of a
sei-
Chapter
provides
provisions.
the
money,
property
judgment
a
zure of his
taking
the
mechanism for
control of
it,
may request
hearing pursuant
debtor,
debtor
selling
and
property of the
l-17-405(c).
(1/2)
One-half
in W.S.
distributing
proceeds
the
to creditors
judgment
debtor
accordance with the distribution scheme
sixty
personal services rendered within
of the Code.
(60) days immediately preceding
levy
chapter 7. From
Two ideals underlie
attachment,
levy
and due
of execution
viewpoint, chapter 7 es-
the creditor’s
levy,
owing
and
at the time of the
are
concept
equitable
tablishes the
dis-
appears by when it
among
of a debtor’s
tribution
creditors
that the
are
affidavit or otherwise
which,
eases,
in-
in most
resources
necessary
family residing
for the use of his
full
all.
permit
payment
sufficient to
state, supported wholly
part
or in
in this
vantage
From the individual debtor’s
by his labors.
permits
honest
point, chapter 7
form,
legisla-
Accordingly,
previous
financial life
in its
debtor to obtain a new
obviously
the debtor an
discharge
unpaid debts.
ture
desired to afford
(1985); Annot.,
provide for
P.2d 129
Joint Bank Ac
continue to
opportunity to
his/her
Attachment,
Subject
personal
count
half of his
Garnish
family through use of
ment,
exemption was limit-
or Execution
Creditor of One of
earnings. This
services
ed, however, merely
Depositors,
the Joint
A.L.R.3d 1465
(1967).
sixty-days
harmony
owing within
This rule is
with the
earnings due and
“
levy.
language
‘general
This
infers
prior to
rule
evidence
the burden
legislature
person
then intended to narrow
proof
lies on the
who wishes to
applicable
frame
by particular
time
his case
fact which
implies
legislature’s
perhaps even
peculiarly
knowledge,
within his
lies more
exemption only
to limit the
supposed
cognizant.’
desire
or of which he is
to be
exemp-
continue the
owing
Evidence,
274;
and not
due
Principles of
1 Greenl.
were
79;
Selma,
once these
tion
Ev.
589.”
Ev.
Starkie
hands or de-
placed into either the debtor’s
Company
Rome and Dalton Railroad
v.
posited into an account.
States,
560, 567-568,
United
U.S.
(1891).
638, 640,
S.Ct.
McManaman next contends that the dis- 1-20-110, determining trict in court erred provide any provision did not for statutory exemption however, for not exemption; does appel- the apply proceeds from the sale of his lants in the case contended that a trans- ranching op- cattle. He contends that his application garnishment ferred of the stat- execution, 1-15-102, erations are sole source of income and provided ute a basis n allowing the intended to earn- a rancher or farmer to claim a ings provide which for the basic seventy-five percent exemption necessities proceeds of proceed of life. with our non-purchase money We discussion of from the sale of live- issue, majority this seventy-five but note that a of stock percent and of the value jurisdictions recognize support now that crops planted of and livestock born after cannot be im- security perfected. simply logically was Id. livestock interest the pressed garnishment concept. rejected appellant’s conten- with the 805. Coones first, tion, provided by noting that Podolak Id. at 805-06. ad- precedent because the statute
no
Although
bankruptcy
involved
is-
Coones
existed, and,
longer
in
sec-
it no
dressed
sues,
broadly
holding
sweeps
this last
and
statutory language
ondly, because the
permit
argument
not
does
McManaman’s
“earnings
could not
services”
prevail.
McManaman’s bank account
interpreted
any income other
to include
be
to a third-party
funds are not traceable
payable by
third
periodically
that
a
than
payable
obligation
periodically. Addition-
Specifically, Coones stated:
party.
ally,
exemption
apply
if the
did
the
when
owing,
were
not
funds
McManaman has
comparison
a
of the
We find from
any argument
authority
provided
that
broadly
changed phraseology that
extinguished upon
was not
Wyoming
in
found
earlier
based rules
payment
into his bank
by
were
the 1987 defini-
law
constricted
We, therefore,
account.
hold
McMa-
that
a
of identi-
tion which itemizes
character
naman’s bank account funds
not
ex-
rights,
wages, salary, commis-
e.g.,
cal
empt
garnishment
writ of
sion,
proceeds
any pension
bonus and
affirm the
court’s order.
district
com-
or retirement benefit
deferred
¶¶
McManaman,
Hence,
this
pensation plan.
are entitled to
10-14.
while
Statutes
particular
interpretation
a
and we con-
court did
address
issue
reasonable
McManaman,
appeal
this
we did
character of benefits
raised
sider the
possibility
wage
salary
recognize
charac-
that
defined
within
being
might
earn-
income
continue after
terization. Profits and business
meaning
wage
placed in a
ings are outside the
debtor’s bank
interpretation gathers
salary.
This
jurisdictions
that
21] Courts
[¶
garnishment
from the
statute
faced this
have
issue
found that
recognizes
obligation
provision which
funds in
account
traced
extent
a bank
can be
being
pay
profit
as
different from
wages,
portion
exempt.
to the debtor’s
right
business
which involve a
bankruptcy
reasoning
I find the
used
to receive.
Kobemusz,
in In re
160 B.R.
847-
court
(D.Colo.1993) (footnote omitted),
in-
when
Appellants further
contend
statutory
very
terpreting Colorado
scheme
pro-
could
word “otherwise”
suffice
Wyoming, particularly per-
to that of
similar
for the
character
vide entitlement
broad
suasive.
rights
in Podolak
result from
found
Plaintiffs
had
from this
counsel
issued
prior
accept statute. We cannot
garnishment.
a writ of
That writ
Court
thoughtful
effect
contention since its
was
accordance with
Colorado state
would
disassociate the structure of
be to
practice
set forth
Colo.R.Civ.P.
relating
to one charac-
clause when
upon the
properly
The writ was
served
adding
funds
an almost
ter
Bank,
responded that
promptly
which
unlimited character
other funds
in the
De-
had funds on account
name of
particular
no
with-
would have
validation
At
of the
fendant.
the time
service
wage
continuing
in the
of a
constraints
garnishment,
Defendant received
writ
statutory system.
limit
We
partial
list
notice
*9
any application
1-
of “otherwise” in W.S.
exemptions
of
that could be claimed.
15-102(a)(vi)
third-par-
to a character of
ty obligations
exemption
claim
payable for services ren-
Defendant filed his
for
§
He
by
exemption.
dered
the claimant for
under Colo.Rev.Stat.
13-54-104.
meaning
money
exempt,
Intrinsic
1-15-
of his
as
of W.S.
claims
75%
wages
by
102 are
of
earned
him. On
provisions
W.S.
it constitutes
hand,
argues
earnings
person-
Plaintiff
which are related
for
exemption
periodically payable.
ability
al
Busi-
to claim this
was lost
services
joint
profits
receipts
crop
money
placed
ness
was
when
into
co-mingled
questioned
with
vitality
account and
the continued
bank
of Rutter
Shumway.
v.
monies.
See Holmes v. Blazer Fi
Services, Inc.,
nancial
369 So.2d
provides that no
law
mote than
Colorado
(Fla. App.1979).
aggregate
twenty-five percent of the
of
subject
earnings per week is
Plaintiff does call the Court’s attention
garnishment..
Colo.Rev.Stat.
13-54-
Arizona,
Usery
v.
Nat.
First
Bank of
104(2)(a). Multiples
minimum
of the
fed-
(9th Cir.1978).
exemption. further expresses The trustee is served where situations bank, ability not have does a bank wage exemption earner’s because
calculate amount deposited
it know if the will not prop- if account comes withholdings
er have been made from those However, process provided
amounts. Wyoming garnishment does not scheme
require a bank to determine the sta-
tus monies held bank accounts.
Rather, debtor’s responsibility is the
affirmatively assert that he in the assets. Thus, having carefully
[¶ considered 26] arguments Wyo- parties’ reviewed
ming’s statutory ap- scheme
plicable authority, I would hold disposa- wages
ble from a income derived deposited into the debtor’s bank account §§ 1— under 40-14-505(b) insofar
15^408 and as the debt- by competent evidence can establish that
such monies were derived from
personal services.
2004 WY Anthony MESSER, Appellant
John
(Defendant), Wyoming, STATE (Plaintiff).
Appellee
No. 03-231.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of
Aug.