Case Name: In re: Randy Lowell DALE and Susan Page Dale, Debtors Randy Lowell Dale; Susan Page Dale, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Michael W. Puerner, Trustee, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-13
Citations: 43 F. App'x 911
Docket Number: No. 01-1429
Parties: In re: Randy Lowell DALE and Susan Page Dale, Debtors Randy Lowell Dale; Susan Page Dale, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Michael W. Puerner, Trustee, Defendant-Appellee
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 911–912

Head Matter:
In re: Randy Lowell DALE and Susan Page Dale, Debtors Randy Lowell Dale; Susan Page Dale, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Michael W. Puerner, Trustee, Defendant-Appellee
No. 01-1429.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 13, 2002.
Before MERRITT and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; and WEBER, District Judge.
The Honorable Herman J. Weber, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MERRITT, Circuit Judge.
In an opinion dated February 12, 2001, the District Court held in this bankruptcy case that the five individual retirement accounts (IRAs) of the debtors-appellant, are not exempt under § 552(d)(10)(E) of the Bankruptcy Code, codified in Title 11, U.S.C. The appellees now concede that a subsequent opinion by this Court in In re Brucher, 243 F.3d 242 (6th Cir.2001), reversed the position taken by the District Court and requires us to reverse the District Court unless we overrule Brucher. Appellee now asks that this court reverse the holding in In re Brucher and affirm the bankruptcy court's and the district court's decision denying debtors' exemption [of] the IRAs under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). (Opin. p. 14.)
Under the rules and precedents of the Sixth Circuit, one panel of our Court may not in a subsequent case overrule the holding of a previous panel. Only the court en banc may do so. Hence this panel has no alternative but to follow Brucher and reverse the decision of the District Court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded for further consideration in light of our decision here and our previous decision in Brucher. Id.