*2 nuity improperly exempted was from the BOWMAN, Before BEAM, Judges. and Circuit BEAM, Judge. II. DISCUSSION appeals the dis- Trustee Julia Christians The district determined that the annuity exempting an be- trict court’s order annuity bankruptcy is from the es and longing Connie Dulas from tate under Minnesota statute section bankruptcy We reverse. estate. exempts That subdivision 22. “[rjights of action for I. BACKGROUND of the debtor or of a relative whether or not 550.37(22). in death.” Minn.Stat. (collec- Edward and Connie Dulas We must therefore determine whether the debtors) voluntary tively petition filed a annuity right constitutes a of action under Chapter under 7 of the appeal, Minnesota law. On we review de They legal novo the district court’s conclusion that by provided of those instead annuity from the then federal law.1 The debtors claimed that Muncrief, estate. See In re annuity an from which Connie receives monthly was payments from the under Minnesota law. estate language of The section the result of the The settle- makes it clear that the Dulas not a of a action out Procter, right e.g., of action. involving of an automobile accident (Bankr.D.Minn.1995) (holding settlement, Dulas. To effectuate term, action,’ ‘rights of “[t]he is defined as legal débtors dismissed their re- suit; bring legal right ‘the liability. leased the defendants from further action, growing given maintain an out of a return, purchased an an- transaction or state of facts and based there nuity payable Dulas. The to Connie ”) (quoting on’ Dictionary Black’s Law $450,000 in provides that 1990)); Medill, ed. cash, $3,150 monthly payments of for the (construing forty years, lump sum of next “rights only term of action” to include future birthday. sixty-fifth pay- her claims). pending exempts The statute guaranteed by ments are insur- action, payment.2 ance contract with the Life Insurance Com- Medill, Although n. pany of North America. debtors had a of action when Connie objected injured, they longer

The trustee to the claimed ex- was no have such a Instead, emption ground right. they that an on the have pre-petition of a ceived settlement of their action— opinion may being debtors elect to use either the turn in the be construed as set in the federal supportive expanded forth definition of the ex- nonbankruptcy code or in the law of the debtors' However, emption sought by the debtors. on the 522(d) Compare domicile. with 11 facts, inapposite Medill is here. Medill’s tort 522(b)(2). U.S.C. pending claim was trial at all times. relevant Thus, definition, any proposed "right legality "right 2. The of a of action” of action” mentioned in the Minnesota statute under the Minnesota Constitution was deter clearly in existence. mined Court in Me dill v. 477 N.W.2d 703 Dic- (set (D.Minn.1994); 186 B.R. at 469 at the time still which was part no concept proceeds paid negate in full tlement settling filing. By their party paid right of action because the right of claim, their reduced defendant); right against the with no further Consequently, to a *3 (Bankr. Carlson, B.R. a of action annuity is not the D.Minn.1984) (settlement proceeds from per law. injury exempt action were because legislature wished Had yet released defendants from debtors had not resulting from exempt proceeds to payments). liability or received settlement It claims, done so. has injury it could have guarantor Only third-party the of the other instances. in numerous done so obligated debtors here. At remains (23) (exempt §§ & e.g., Minn.Stat. best, may in the future have a the debtors proceeds); Minn.Stat. insurance ing against the third- breach of contract 550.37(12) (ex 510.01, 510.02, §§ 510.07 party annuity guarantor. Such an action homestead); proceeds from sale of empting clearly not be an action “for to would 550.37(24) (exempting right to § Minn.Stat. person” under Minnesota law. See Minn. the benefits); Minn.Stat. employee 550.37(22). Therefore, § the Stat. benefits). As (exempting veteran’s § 550.38 bankruptcy estate.3 not court stated: the Procter on Finally, the court’s reliance has not chosen legislature the support not the “policy considerations” does arising from a proceeds exempt settlement stating annuity exemption on facts. In these injury legislature claim. the would de that the denial of effectively knows how to the prive of their to a “fresh the debtors proceeds for exemption protection provide start,” ignored the fact the court property if it so chooses. Clear- of could have elected to use the that the debtors then, legislature omit- ly the fact that the statutes. the federal person- from any inclusion of ted (Bankr. Dulas, indicates a deliberate claims al D.Minn.1995). event, any In the at so. choice not to do is not under Minnesota issue here 550.37, at 469. 22. We statute section subdivision however, note, today’s not that decision does distinguishable from situations This case availability of other address the pays a defendant where a Bankruptcy found in the protections period a of time. amount over There, continuing obli defendant has ¡II. CONCLUSION here, plaintiffs; there is no such gation to the at issue was here Because case, In this obligation. exempted from the improperly for the benefit of bought an in 1984 estate, dis- judgment of the we reverse obligation end defendants’ the debtors. The trict court. Gagne, Compare In re at that time. ed (settle Judge, compensation proceeds from worker’s dissenting. purpose of stat claim ute), respectfully dissent. grounds, 172 B.R. 50 rev’d on other protect rights of ac- supported by statute to ed its is further 3. Our conclusion notes). 550.37(22) (historical exemp legislative history § and state of the federal Minn.Stat. tion. Bankruptcy Currently, protection Code tion statutes. provides can elect the Because a rights payment exemptions, Minnesota's either state or federal action. 11 U.S.C. from a bankruptcy debtors allowed amendment 522(d)(11)(D). change in feder This reflects protecting rights of action or choose between law, rights instead of al case, fights In this exempted. payment previously were pro- which 70a(5) (formerly Act of 1938 choice failed tected of action. Their 110.A(5)) (reproduced on in Collier becoming part protect from 1978)). ¶ (14th ed. Af change Minnesota amend- in federal ter the judgment preme of the district Court would take than statement banc, though that court en dictum it be. annuity, portion exempting the which was a The court states that “Medill’s tort claim of the structured settlement. pending trial at all relevant times.” Su view, pra at 704 n. 2. today gives my the court far too say anything Court did not to indicate that it weight little to Medill v. 477 N.W.2d pending, relied on the fact that Medill judgment, rather than emphasized reduced to Court of Minnesota there particular “relevant strong policies in time.” The Medill deci were social favor of ex- sion itself reflects that empting damage per- awards the tort *4 15, 1989, claim had injuries. been entered on March Supreme Supreme Court ren Court stated: before opinion approving dered its policies protecting [of These debtors from 22, 1991. November Id. at 704. apply want”] “absolute with even more personal injury right force to the I believe that these statements of the exemption because it deals not so much Supreme Court en banc in Medill property, with the debtor’s but with the apply show that it would capital.... debtor’s human The debtor this case. personal injury who suffers serious is de- judgment of the district court prived using capital his or her human court. getting a fresh start.

Id. at 708. The Minnesota

drew no distinction between a debtor’s inter- already

est in a

duced to settlement or and his in a

interest claim. The Minnesota policy arguments apply equally court’s Jerry WAUGH, Debtor. Indeed, both situations. Medill stated: Jeny WAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, why “We can find no reason the creditor should be able to attach a structured settle- more than a homestead. To ELDRIDGE; Eldridge; Reuben Sandra place allow it is to the burden on tax- Defendants-Appellees. paying public while the creditors benefit poli- the award- the social Luker, James C. Trustee. recovery stronger is even No. 95-3835. [than the case of homestead].” added). (emphasis Id. United States Court of Eighth It is true that Medill deals with Circuit. the consti- statute, tutionality and does April 1996. speak us, precise issue before opinion that the statements in the are dic- hand, tum. On the other the statements are Rehearing Denied Oct.

powerful expressions by supreme the state public policy court en banc at the question

heart of ques- before us. The

tion of is one of state

when an issue has not been decided state, responsi- Court of a it is our

bility predict how that court would decide

the case before us. of no know clearer

indicator of the direction the Minnesota Su-