Opinion ID: 2507848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: SSI benefits

Text: As explained above, SSI benefits are meant to provide recipients with a minimum income for self-support and are not paid from wage withholding or other employment funds. SSI benefits are not funded from payments from any past or present employment. [32] Nor are recipients required to pay into the social security system in order to qualify for SSI. Consequently, SSI benefits are not payable based on remuneration for employment, and the general exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 407 applies. As federal law exempts these benefits from creditors, and Nevada's child support statute includes these benefits as income to be used in child support calculations, the federal statute conflicts with Nevada's statute. According to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Rose v. Rose, [33] when a family law statute comes into conflict with a federal statute, the state law will be preempted if Congress has `positively required by direct enactment' that preemption is necessary. The Rose Court also explained that before a court may consider that federal law as overriding a state family law, the state law `must do major damage to clear and substantial federal interests.' [34] The Supreme Court has also recognized that `[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone' in every pre-emption case.' [35] We previously recognized the federal exemption's preemptive effect in Boulter v. Boulter, a case involving property division between spouses. [36] In Boulter , the district court dissolved the parties' thirty-seven-year marriage and incorporated a property settlement agreement into the divorce decree. Under the agreement, the parties agreed to pool and divide equally the social security benefits accrued by the husband during the marriage. [37] When the husband reached retirement, he refused to apply for social security benefits, and the wife moved to enforce the agreement. The district court granted the wife's motion, and the husband appealed. On appeal, we concluded that the state court lacked authority to enforce the marital settlement agreement's provision dividing social security benefits. In resolving the issue, we observed that 42 U.S.C. § 407's exemption applied to the social security benefits and concluded that this provision preempted the decree. Accordingly, the district court was without authority to take any action regarding the parties' social security benefits. [38] As with the social security benefits in Boulter , the federal exemption for SSI benefits also preempts Nevada law. The purpose of SSI is to provide a recipient with a minimum income for his or her own needs. Thus, using SSI benefits to satisfy a child support obligation would do `major damage' to a clear and substantial federal interest. [39] Our conclusion is supported by the law from other jurisdictions as well. A majority of states have expressly exempted SSI benefits from income considerations under child support statutes. [40] Other states, through case law, have held that § 407(a) prohibits state courts from ordering child support to come from SSI benefits. [41]