Opinion ID: 2823801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Exemption Statute

Text: Â¶9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Colorado permits debtors to exempt certain property from garnishment, and from levy and sale under writ of attachment or writ of execution, allowing them to retain those assets rather than divide them among their creditors. As relevant here, section 13-54-102(1)(s) exempts [p]roperty, including funds, held in or payable from any pension or retirement plan or deferred compensation plan, including those in which the debtor has received benefits or payments, has the present right to receive benefits or payments, or has the right to receive benefits or payments in the future and including pensions or plans which qualify under the federal âEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,â as amended, as an employee pension benefit plan, as defined in 29 U.S.C. sec. 1002, any individual retirement account, as defined in 26 U.S.C. sec. 408, any Roth individual retirement account, as defined in 26 U.S.C. sec. 408A, and any plan, as defined in 26 U.S.C. sec. 401, and as these plans may be amended from time to time. (Emphasis added.) Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The historical purpose behind Coloradoâs statutory exemptions is to preserve the debtorâs means of support. Smith v. Pueblo Mercantile & Credit Assân, 260 P. 109, 111 (Colo. 1927). To effectuate this purpose, courts liberally construe exemptions in favor of debtors. See Colo. Const. art. XVIII, Â§ 1 (âThe general assembly shall pass liberal homestead and exemption laws.â); Sandberg v. Borstadt, 109 P. 419, 421 (Colo. 1910) (âPrimarily, the exemption laws of the state are for the benefit of residents, and they are to be liberally construed.â); see also In re Larson, 260 B.R. 174, 193 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2001) (â[T]his Court notes the long-standing tradition in the courts of Colorado to construe all exemptions laws liberally in favor of debtors.â). But courts cannot invoke the principleÂ of liberal construction to alter the plain meaning of a statute. See In re M.D.E., 2013 COA 13, Â¶ 16, 297 P.3d 1058, 1061.