that the funds are need to be set aside by the debtor in order to be retirement funds and he didn't give any other in the other finding and now it's always been the  position that that is not the case that you don't it doesn't need to be the debtors funds it can be the spouse's fund and and the reason i have that opinion is that in the supreme court case the court case there is they distinguish non spouse all inherited accounts inherited iras now it's interesting that and i was fairly confident that i would prevail today but i'm even more so because i pulled the court of appeals decision and frankly it's it's it's it could have been written by the supreme court it's almost the same thing so the supreme court followed the appellate court decision and in that decision the court with the public court said this quadrille no not yet there it was just under the whose name are those very still in the wife's theirs and there's a for one k and that's still in the way it's name in an ira that's still in her name so at the time he filed they were accounts but they weren't his retirement accounts at the time he filed and exemptions are determined on the data file and he may have had an interest in them and that interest might be exempt of all but it's certainly not going to be example as a retirement account because he doesn't own the retirement accounts correct well i mean even if we accept your argument about it being possibly being it wasn't his retirement account on the petition date well yes i believe that under that there are some cited in my brief and ohio case that pretty much the same situation in the court in that case ruled that he had an interest in that account because of the marital interest he has an interest and that's a separate  isn't the same thing as the account he hasn't and on and indeterminate marital interest because the divorce court could have easily said he was going to get none of it correct so he doesn't have a mostly for whom of the funds or whom the husband or the wife well that's subject to a domestic relations order ordering that nineteen client so you're not you're not understanding i'm not sure we're asking the question as best we could i think under the code certain actions that happen after the finding may bring property into the estate one of th k go into your client's name within a hundred eighty days of the filing no are it now to to be cleared did he did your client or his where were the proceed they still were held by the funds with at wells fargo by the four a one k fund and by the ira fund those who judge nail is correct he had an interest in her retirement account yes that was also his interest because he was marital property now if he's no longer the the spouse then an inherited irate from a spouse that's no longer your spouse either because the person  but you know that the exemptions are supposed to be interpreted liberally and to give to give the debtor a fresh start in here the debtor has an what it was determined to be marital property by that but when she retired she would get the funds and she could choose to use them to assist in his retirement or choose not to correct that's true so i'm not understanding how it's his retirement ok the reason we don't have that yet is because the the appellee has a claims job and attorneys lien against those funds and was trying to to collect those funds despite the fact that analogy to the inherited spouse is that it doesn't necessarily have to be earned or deposited by the debtor it's you look at when what was the point of putting that money away it was put away for the marital community for the both both couples well i understand you want to say that but we're in the record is that the case well it's under me i've got a i've got a return in account too i fully anticipate that when i retire my wife will benefit from it but i don't know that it's her retirement account just because i might choose to share well if in minnesota when you get divorced  that is half a year if it's marital property that is also your property and what's the nature of it the nature of it is retirement and that's what the court said to the court and clarke said look at it at the time it was put away what was it it was a marital property under under minnesota law does a spouse have a specific interest in all of the assets of the other spouse or is that and this is when intangible interest that gets the turn into pop in the event of a  the fact that it didn't get transferred i don't think steals the day from my client because he did have that that interest in it and it just needed to be transferred over after th whether the debtors claimed exemption in his interest in the ira and for a one k accounts under eleven u s c five twenty two b free c meets the conditions that the u a perfected attorney slain which cannot be avoided in the bankruptcy and he would be entitled to that leave because you're essentially collecting the retirement funds on behalf of the estate is that right the trustee hasn't watched a separate objection with regard to this no the trustee has not under these two supreme court cases first the funds claim must be retirement funds which the supreme court has defined the sums of money set aside for the day when an individual stops working the funds must be in a tax to exempt account and must be subject to restrictions on transfer of the supreme court requires an objective test which focuses on the legal characteristics of the account holding the funds in question and the questions would be whether the debtor required to use the funds for retirement or cost of disability and is the debtors access to the funds limited in the same fashion as his ex wife's access and use of the funds was limited man under the patterson case also the funds must be subject to anti an alienation provision that limits the debtors access and protects the funds from the reach of creditors the patterson component isn't disputed is it your honor this was a spendthrift trust in the sense that it qualified under the internal revenue code right if you did yes yes but on funds remain in the title of the ex wife and your right there the it in is a trust fund for her benefit however at the point in the future when these funds eventually come into the debtors possession or should that occur there is no longer a trust for his benefit he has complete access to the funds and for that reason we think that this case is similar to the kaiser involves a debtors claimed exemption in the proceeds of her ex husband's ira i count however the wosm the court did not cite clark free ram occur instead it looked at the patterson holding and concluded that because the funds were qualified funds when the when when you know prior to the divorce that the debtor ex husband would also have the benefits of that aristocrat cation however the patterson case applies to a debtor tempting to exempt his own funds and for that reason whereas here we're talking about an ex found seeking to exam the two case that says what is what is and what is not property of the estate acknowledging that if you have a spendthrift provision in a trust it does not become property of the estate correct and and as i mentioned earlier assuming that these funds mean that the to the debtor comes into title to these funds there is no longer a spendthrift trust for the debtors benefit that's the distinction that we're we should be making i suppose you i don't think you can argue that he has unfettered access when he only had at the time of his bankruptcy and interest in her property which was to receive qualified mr heche doesn't even argue that and he says it is property of state and i can take from property of the estate my exam property both skipping over the fact that the estates interest was an interest in her account not the account itself or the proceeds of the account well maybe it's a distinction without a difference but i don't think so is that i guess your the best we can do then is just say that we believe that he has an interest in that account and i was taking an exemption out of caution because following the following bankruptcy i'm not quite sure what's going to happen when they try to when they try to get that i think it's it an attorney's line is an oddity gets in on an animal it's not used very often and i think what they have to do is they have to it's not a judicial in a statutory law what they have to do though is use a judicial collection procedures and you get rid of execution and you levy on it and then i'm thinking to counter that you claim an exemption you the reason why i'm concerned about that it was is that exempt assets are not subject to lead to an attorney's lien that's pretty clear it's in my region of my memorandum to the bankruptcy court that issue and judge sjodin raises an interesting point when she says the issue of the attorney i mean isn't the force but it was briefed and i want to give you an opportunity to convince the three of us that the validity of the attorney's lane has any bearing whatsoever on the allowance or disallowance of the proof of of the exemption i'm sorry not with regard to the exemption your honor ok because i thought that judge cristol spent a fair amount of time trying to clarify that it had no bearing on the issue no i was a little bit surprised to see it being exemption should be allowed or not wrecked thank you for that for sure that you questioned the status of the house i asked specifically if wells had maintained the account through all this litigation as i understand yes correct the the bankruptcy the automatic stay in the bankruptcy has not prevented these funds from being transferred your honor i hesitate to answer that question because i know that that did come up  don't know how it was resolved thank you and there is a case out of ohio where there's a lengthy discussion about the relevance of the timing of the quadro but our argument is analyze the legal characteristics of the account to determine whether