ILNews

COA: student loan funds exempt from garnishment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Court of Appeals today found that student loan funds that had been deposited in a personal account were exempt when it came to whether those funds could be taken from a defendant’s bank account to satisfy a judgment regarding legal fees the defendant owed to the plaintiff.

In the case Nikki Brindle v. Patrick J. Arata , No. 02A05-1004-SC-239, in June 2009, Nikki Brindle and Patrick Arata “entered into an agreed judgment in favor of Arata on a debt incurred for provision of legal services,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge Cale J. Bradford.

On March 11, Arata initiated proceedings to seek funds from Brindle’s bank account at National City Bank. The bank replied March 22 that she had $3,367.01 in her account.

But on March 17, Brindle filed an exemption claim and requested a hearing where she introduced a voucher, dated Feb. 10, from the Academy of Art University.

That voucher indicated she would receive a check for $3,268, the amount left over after her student loan provider paid tuition to the university. Her bank records indicated a deposit for $3,271 into her account that occurred on March 1. She said the deposit was from her student loan.

On March 26, the trial court denied her exemption claim and ordered National City Bank to send to the Allen County Clerk of Courts all funds in her account except $300.

Although the trial court found that by depositing her student loan check into an account with personal funds those funds lost their exempt status under federal law regarding wage garnishments, section 1095a, the Court of Appeals disagreed.

“Simply put, the plain language of section 1095a exempts student loan funds and property traceable to those funds from garnishment or attachment, and there is no provision to which either party points us, or of which we are aware, that terminates this status, whether by deposit in a personal bank account or otherwise. … We believe that a contrary conclusion would effectively eviscerate the protections of section 1095a and render it all but meaningless, a result we doubt was intended by Congress. If the protections of section 1095a were lost upon deposit into a personal bank account, one is left to wonder what the point of the section is, when almost every recipient of student funds will surely do just that,” Judge Bradford wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT