Case Name: MARION v. VAUGHN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-07-25
Citations: 12 Mich. App. 453
Docket Number: Docket No. 2,290
Parties: MARION v. VAUGHN.
Judges: Lesinski, C. J., concurred with J. H. G-illis, J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 12
Pages: 453–467

Head Matter:
MARION v. VAUGHN.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Schools and School Districts — Employees—Contributions— Retirement Fund.
All public sehool employees in the State of Michigan must contribute by way of payroll deductions to the Michigan public sehool employees’ retirement system; but if they leave public sehool service before retirement, they are entitled to a refund of their accumulated contributions (CLS 1961, §§ 38.221, 38.222).
2. Same — Employees—Retirement Fund — Garnishment—-Exemption.
Pensions, annuities, retirement allowances, or other benefits set up by the statute creating the public school employees’ retirement system, and the various funds set up by-the statute, are exempt from garnishment (CLS 1961, § 38.225).
3. Same — Employees — Retirement Fund — Contributions — Garnishment.
Accumulated pension contributions in public sehool employees’ retirement system which are subject to return to a judgment debtor by reason of his leaving the school system are part of the “various funds” that are statutorily exempt from garnishment (CLS 1961, § 38.225).
Dissenting Opinion.
Levin, J.
4. Schools and School Districts — Employees—Retirement Fund —Exemption From Garnishment — Statutory Construction.
Exemption from garnishment in public school employees’ retirement system statute of “a pension, an annuity or retirement allowance, * * * or any oilier benefits accrued or accruing” and of “the various funds created by this chapter” showed 2 separate concepts in the mind of the legislature, protection of the participant’s interest, and protection of the interest of the system itself (CLS 1961, § 88.225).
Reperbnces por Points in Headnotes
[1] 47 Am Jur, Schools § 114 et seq.
[2-5, 7-9] 6 Am Jur 2d, Attachment and Garnishment § 180 et seq.
[6] 50 Am Jur, Statutes § 249 et seq.
5. Same — Employees—Retirement Fund — Exemption prom Garnishment — Statutory Construction.
Exemption from garnishment in public school employees’ retirement system statute of “the various funds created by this chapter” should be construed so as to protect the i/nterests of the system itself and not the interests of any one participant (CLS 1961, § 88.225).
6. Statutes — Construction—Legislative Intent — Ejusdem Generis. < ''
A useful aid at times in determining legislative intent is the principle that general words are to be limited to things ejusdem generis with matters covered by preceding specific words.
7. Schools and School Districts — Employees—Retirement Fund —Exemption From Garnishment — Statutory Construction.
A , claim that statute exempts from garnishment contributions to the public school employees’ retirement fund that are due and owing to the contributor because he has left the school system, should be considered in the light of the legislative purpose in passing the exemption statute, because the statute does not ■ specifically exempt the obligation due to such an employee (CLS 1961, § 38.225).
8. Same — Employees—Retirement Fund — Exemption from Garnishment — Legislative Purpose. •
The purpose behind the statutory exemption from, garnishment of certain funds of the public school employees’ retirement system was to protect participants, not ex-párticipants, and this purpose is not advanced -by .an interpretation which allows an ex-participant to escape his creditors (CLS 1961, §38.225).
9. Same — Employees—Retirement Fund — Exemption from Garnishment — Legislative Purpose.
It was not the intention of the legislature to protect the money contributed by a judgment debtor to the public ■ school employees’ retirement fund from garnishment beyond the period of the debtor’s membership in the plan,.and therefore a lump sum payment due to the debtor when he resigned from the public school system should be subject to garnishment (CLS 1961, § $8,225).
Appeal from Wayne, Murphy (Thomas J.), J.
Submitted Division 1 March 7, 1967, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 2,290.)
Decided July 25, 1968.
Complaint by Buster Marion against Gerald B. Vaughn. Plaintiff proceeded by writ of garnishment against the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement Fund. The garnishee defendant denied that it had any nonexempt .funds owned by defendant Vaughn, and moved for accelerated judgment. Motion granted. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Elsman, Young & Ro galle, for plaintiff.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Eugene Krasicky and James J. Wood, Assistant Attorneys General, for garnishee defendant.

Opinion:
J. H. Gillis, J.
Plaintiff, Buster Marion, obtained a judgment against Gerald B. Vaughn, principal defendant, who was a public school employee in the State of Michigan and as such was a member of the Michigan public school employees retirement system. Mr. Vaughn made contributions to the system by way of payroll deductions. After leaving the public school service, Mr. Vaughn applied to the garnishee defendant for a return of his accumulated contributions. Thereafter, plaintiff secured a writ of garnishment against the garnishee defendant in an attempt to reach funds of the principal defendant. .The garnishee defendant filed a disclosure denying that it had any assets belonging to the principal .defendant "except funds and/or benefits exempt from garnishment by § 25 of Act 136, PA 1945, as amended, being CLS 1961, § 38.225 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 15,893[25])."
Plaintiff moved for trial of the statutory issue and the garnishee defendant moved for accelerated judgment. The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the property involved and granted accelerated judgment on June 8, 1966.
The sole issue for our determination is whether the accumulated contributions of the principal defendant are exempt from garnishment under this factual situation. Section 25 of the act provides:
"A pension, an annuity, or retirement allowance, any optional benefit, or any other benefits accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this chapter, the various funds created by this chapter, and all moneys and investments and income thereof,-are hereby exempt from any state, county, municipal, or other local tax, and shall not be subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, the operation of bankruptcy or insolvency laws, or other process of law whatsoever; and the right of a member to a pension, an annuity, or retirement allowance, any optional benefit, or any other benefits accrued or accruing to any such member or beneficiary under the provisions of this chapter shall be unassignable except as in this chapter specifically provided."
Plaintiff contends that the portion of the act exempting "any other benefits accrued or accruing under the provisions of this chapter" does not cover accumulated contributions, urging that the accumulated contributions are not benefits since the member has made the contribution himself. However, in deciding this case we need not look this far in the act in order to arrive at our determination. This act specifically exempts "the various funds created by this chapter, and all moneys and investments and income thereof."
Section 12 of the act provides:
"The funds hereby created are the annuity accumulation fund, annuity reserve fund, pension accumulation fund, expense fund and general fund."
The annuity accumulation fund is next defined in §12 subd (a) as:
" the fund in which shall be accumulated the contributions from the compensation of members for the purchase of annuities."
"While we have quoted a sufficient portion of the act to support the lower court decision, perhaps we should point out that the purpose of the exemption clause would be defeated were we to hold otherwise. Any accumulated contributions would be subject to garnishment up to the date that the employee enters into retirement. The existence of the fund is a well recognized incentive to faithful discharge of duties during the period of active service. It is of great benefit to the employees to have their accumulated contributions protected both during their working years and those years thereafter when they are unable to perform service in their profession.
Affirmed. Costs to appellee.
Lesinski, C. J., concurred with J. H. G-illis, J.
CL 1918, § 38.212 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 15.893[12]).