楊清泉律師專欄 - 破產時工傷賠償金能免債嗎？
楊清泉律師事務所
比方說，你在工作時受傷。一段時間後，你拿到工傷索賠，有權獲得$ 200,000。但是，在過去的3年裡你因為受傷致殘而無法工作。你欠下信用卡債務$80,000元，因為你沒有收入。你決定申請第7章破產救濟 ，以便能擺脫您的 卡債$80,000元。可是你又已經得到了$ 20萬元的工傷賠償，那些錢將會如何？ 受託人會不會拿走你這$20萬去付您的信用卡債務$80,000呢？亦或者，你既能夠保住$20萬，又得以免除您的信用卡債務$80,000呢？這確實是一個有趣的問題。
當然，受託人將竭力獲得你的$20萬。但他會成功嗎？如果在這種情況下，你可以依靠第522（D）（11）破產法（E）。該章節豁免“債務人應得的錢或財產之溯源（E），是因為債務人失去掙錢能力，是對於債務人或債務人要供養的人未來收益的損失補償金，在合理範圍內債務人及其要供養的人是生活必需的。”
案例
第7章債務人Holstine，聲稱 他的工傷賠償$138,000美元應該免債，根據第522（D）（11）（E）。受託人反對豁免申請。但法院發現，工傷賠償是支付他失去未來掙錢能力的損失賠償。因此，該賠償可以予以免債， 它是債務人和他妻子的合理必要的生活費。債務人作證說，他永久致殘，該項賠償是對他的未來收益的補償，他和他的妻子就靠這些賠償過日子。法院沒有發現禁止債務人豁免整筆款項的理由。
受託人隨後向法院提出上訴：The trustee then asked the court for a stay pending appeal, and asked the court to prohibit TCF National Bank from allowing the cash in the debtor’s account to be diminished in any amount less than $70,000. The trustee did not contest the court’s findings of fact, but raised a legal issue that workers’ compensation payments are not protected by Section 522(d)(11)(E). According to the trustee, Mr. big fat Meanie, this section protected only tort claims. While there is case law supporting the trustee’s position, the court noted that those cases were decided in the context of whether to exempt a worker’ compensation award under the more generous exemption provisions of Section 522(d)(10)) or the more restrictive provisions of 522(d)(11)(E). Section 522(d)(10) exempts “The debtor’s right to receive…© a disability, illness, or unemployment benefit." These cases were also decided before In Re Sanchez, where the court found that debtors may exempt a lump sum workers’ compensation redemption under Section 522(d)(11)(E) as longs as: (1) the payment is traceable to a payment in compensation of loss of future earnings of the debtor; and (2) only to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor. Given the very detailed and careful analysis of both prior case law and legislative history in Sanchez, the court in this case was confident that its reliance on that conclusion was sound. Consequently, the court found little likelihood that the trustee would be successful on appeal. The court also noted that if it issued the stay, the debtors would be deprived of money they needed to pay their necessary living expenses. Therefore, the equities favored denying the stay.
The extent reasonably necessary for the support of debtor or his dependent is a flexible standard that takes into consideration the personal circumstances of the debtor. A debtor with substantial income from somewhere else may not need the award for support.
楊清泉律師畢業於喬治城大學法學碩士，並已經開業三十多年。楊清泉律師專精破產法，商業和民事的訴訟，在加州已成功的處理了超過六千個破產案件。楊清泉律師通英語，國語及福建話，並期待著與您討論您的個人情況。請致電安吉 Angie，芭芭拉或 Jess，預約電話（626）284-1142 ，地址1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
當然，受託人將竭力獲得你的$20萬。但他會成功嗎？如果在這種情況下，你可以依靠第522（D）（11）破產法（E）。該章節豁免“債務人應得的錢或財產之溯源（E），是因為債務人失去掙錢能力，是對於債務人或債務人要供養的人未來收益的損失補償金，在合理範圍內債務人及其要供養的人是生活必需的。”
案例
第7章債務人Holstine，聲稱 他的工傷賠償$138,000美元應該免債，根據第522（D）（11）（E）。受託人反對豁免申請。但法院發現，工傷賠償是支付他失去未來掙錢能力的損失賠償。因此，該賠償可以予以免債， 它是債務人和他妻子的合理必要的生活費。債務人作證說，他永久致殘，該項賠償是對他的未來收益的補償，他和他的妻子就靠這些賠償過日子。法院沒有發現禁止債務人豁免整筆款項的理由。
受託人隨後向法院提出上訴：The trustee then asked the court for a stay pending appeal, and asked the court to prohibit TCF National Bank from allowing the cash in the debtor’s account to be diminished in any amount less than $70,000. The trustee did not contest the court’s findings of fact, but raised a legal issue that workers’ compensation payments are not protected by Section 522(d)(11)(E). According to the trustee, Mr. big fat Meanie, this section protected only tort claims. While there is case law supporting the trustee’s position, the court noted that those cases were decided in the context of whether to exempt a worker’ compensation award under the more generous exemption provisions of Section 522(d)(10)) or the more restrictive provisions of 522(d)(11)(E). Section 522(d)(10) exempts “The debtor’s right to receive…© a disability, illness, or unemployment benefit." These cases were also decided before In Re Sanchez, where the court found that debtors may exempt a lump sum workers’ compensation redemption under Section 522(d)(11)(E) as longs as: (1) the payment is traceable to a payment in compensation of loss of future earnings of the debtor; and (2) only to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor. Given the very detailed and careful analysis of both prior case law and legislative history in Sanchez, the court in this case was confident that its reliance on that conclusion was sound. Consequently, the court found little likelihood that the trustee would be successful on appeal. The court also noted that if it issued the stay, the debtors would be deprived of money they needed to pay their necessary living expenses. Therefore, the equities favored denying the stay.
The extent reasonably necessary for the support of debtor or his dependent is a flexible standard that takes into consideration the personal circumstances of the debtor. A debtor with substantial income from somewhere else may not need the award for support.
楊清泉律師畢業於喬治城大學法學碩士，並已經開業三十多年。楊清泉律師專精破產法，商業和民事的訴訟，在加州已成功的處理了超過六千個破產案件。楊清泉律師通英語，國語及福建話，並期待著與您討論您的個人情況。請致電安吉 Angie，芭芭拉或 Jess，預約電話（626）284-1142 ，地址1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
把此文章分享到：
關於 楊清泉律師事務所
