Michigan Bankruptcy Exemption Limits Adjusted Upward 7% on April 1, 2014

Under Michigan law, exemption amounts stated in the bankruptcy exemptions found in MCL section Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5451 are adjusted for inflation, on April 1 of every three years since 2005. Adjustments have been made in 2008, 2011, and now 2014.

The new amounts for 2014 are about 7% higher than the old amounts, but rounded to the nearest $25.

The new amounts have been integrated into the LegaConsumer.com Michigan bankruptcy exemption listings found here.

The official document announcing the Michigan inflation adjustments can be found here or here


SB 396 :: Oregon Now Allows Federal Exemptions, Adds Exemption for Medical Savings Accounts

 Oregon Opts In

Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions now allowed in Oregon Bankruptcies

On July 1, the Governor of Oregon signed into law SB 396, which contains a provision allowing Oregon debtors to select federal exemptions during bankruptcy.  The legislation takes effect immediately. Senate Bill 396 also modifies the Oregon Bankruptcy Exemptions exempts from execution debtor’s right to assets held in, or right to receive payments under, medical savings account or health savings account.

SB 396 :: Oregon Legislature Bill Tracker – Your Government – The Oregonian.


Here is the text of the bill, hilighting the new provisions in underline italic [Read more...]

7th Circuit says inherited IRA not exempt in bankruptcy (at least under the Federal exemptions)

On April 23, 2013, Judge Easterbrook, splitting with other Circuits, has ruled in In re Clark, No. 12-1241 (7th Cir. 2013) that inherited IRAs are not exempt under the federal exemptions. See the slip opinion here.

Here are some reports on the case from Thomson/Reuters.

In circuit split, court says inherited IRA fair game in bankruptcy.

And here is the relevant language:

Easterbrook J.

“Section 522(b)(3)(C) and (d)(12) does not throw creditors’ claims to the wolves in order to enhance the savings and bequest motives. It provides a specific exemption for retirement funds—and inherited IRAs do not qualify, because they are not savings reserved for use after their owners stop working.

The district judge thought the question close and believed that close questions should be decided in debtors’ favor. We do not think the question close; inherited IRAs represent an opportunity for current consumption, not a fund of retirement savings. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether there is or should be an interpretive principle favoring either side in a dispute about the scope of an exemption, or whether any such principle would depend on a combination of federal law (for federal exemptions) plus state law (for state exemptions), as in In re Barker, 768 F.2d 191, 196 (7th Cir. 1985).

The bankruptcy judge got this right. We disagree with the fifth circuit’s decision in Chilton. Because our conclusion creates a conflict among the circuits, we circulated the opinion before release to all judges in active service. None of the judges requested a hearing en banc.