Case Name: In re Henry C. MARSELLA and Linda C. Marsella, Debtors
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1995-11-14
Citations: 188 B.R. 731
Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 95-12106
Parties: In re Henry C. MARSELLA and Linda C. Marsella, Debtors.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 188
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
In re Henry C. MARSELLA and Linda C. Marsella, Debtors.
Bankruptcy No. 95-12106.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island.
Nov. 14, 1995.
Anthony S. Buglio, Warwick, RI, for Debtors.
Matthew McGowan, Chapter 7 Trustee, Providence, RI.

Opinion:
ORDER OVERRULING TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION
ARTHUR N. VOTOLATO, Bankruptcy Judge.
Before the Court is the Chapter 7 Trustee's Objection to the Debtor Henry Marsella's claimed exemption in an Individual Retirement Account. The Trustee argues that an IRA is not exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E) if the Debtor has no present right to payment under the plan, and he cites In re Chick, 135 B.R. 201 (Bankr.D.Conn.1991), and In re Heisey, 88 B.R. 47 (Bankr.D.N.J.1988). The Debtor replies that there is a split of authority on the issue and cites In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1990), and In re Yee, 147 B.R. 624 (Bankr. D.Mass.1992), for the proposition that the exemption afforded under § 522(d)(10)(E) is not limited to the Debtor's present right to receive payments under a pension or profit sharing plan, but also extends to future rights.
For the reasons given and discussed at length in these eases, we agree with Yee and Cilek, and hold that § 522(d)(10)(E) does not require a debtor to begin receiving payments under a pension plan before the petition was filed in order to qualify for the exemption. Yee, 147 B.R. at 625; Cilek, 115 B.R. at 978; see also In re Bates, 176 B.R. 104, 109 (Bankr.D.Me.1994).
Accordingly, the Trustee's Objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption is OVERRULED. The Trustee has not objected to the claimed exemption on the ground that the $20,121 claimed as exempt is not necessary for the support of the Debtor or his dependents. However, considering the amount of the exemption and the fact that the Debtor is 58 years old, we would overrule such an objection in this ease.
Enter Judgment consistent with this order.