Opinion ID: 1429107
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Exemptions Act

Text: In 1982, the Alaska legislature enacted the Alaska Exemptions Act. Ch. 62, § 2, SLA 1982, codified at AS 09.38. The Exemptions Act provides in part that [a]n individual is entitled to exemption of ... limited entry permits granted under AS 16.43, except as provided in that chapter. AS 09.38.015(a)(8). The legislature further provided, however, that certain claims were enforceable against exempt property. Thus, [n]otwithstanding other provisions of this chapter [AS 09.38], a creditor may make a levy against exempt property of any kind to enforce a claim for child support. AS 09.38.065(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The legislature made the following statement of intent in enacting the Exemptions Act: It is the intent of the legislature to modernize the procedures for execution on a judgment and to afford to a judgment debtor adequate protection of his personal property and income necessary to provide for his own needs and the needs of his dependents while remaining independent of further public assistance. Ch. 62, § 1, SLA 1982. From the language of the Act and the legislature's expression of its intent, we find that the legislature expressly considered the competing interests of protecting limited entry permits and enforcing child support awards, and has given child support a higher priority. The legislature adopted the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws' Uniform Exemption Act, as modified by the Alaska Code Revision Commission. See Code Revision Commission Chairman's January 9, 1981 transmittal letter accompanying HB 74 An Act relating to the right of creditors and debtors, to the Twelfth Legislature, First Session, Alaska Legislative Council, reprinted in 1981 House Journal 151-52. The Uniform Exemptions Act does not contain an exemption for limited entry permits. See 13 Uniform Law Annotated, Uniform Exemptions Act § 5 (1980). Moreover, the provisions governing exemptions prior to the enactment of the 1982 Act contained no exemption for limited entry permits. AS 09.35.080 (repealed 1982). Thus, the inclusion of a limited entry permit exemption was a deliberate act of the legislature which took place later in time than the adoption of the no execution language of AS 16.43.150(g)(3). The Uniform Act also differs from the Alaska Act with respect to the types of claims enforceable against exempt property. The Uniform Act provides in part that [n]otwithstanding other provisions of this Act: (1) a creditor may make a levy against exempt property of any kind to enforce a claim for: (i) alimony, support, or maintenance. Uniform Exemptions Act § 10(a)(1)(i) (emphasis added). The Alaska Act differs by providing that a creditor may make a levy against exempt property of any kind to enforce a claim for child support. AS 09.38.065(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Again, it is clear that the legislature made a deliberate determination to provide an exception for child support claims enforceable against otherwise exempt property, for it did not simply adopt wholesale the broader exceptions under the Uniform Act. From this, we conclude that the legislature intended to provide certain specific and limited exceptions where claims may be made against otherwise exempt property of any kind. It is not surprising that one such limited exception is for actions to collect for past due child support obligations, for the legislature has consistently expressed its concern with and support for the compelling public policy favoring enforcement of child support obligations. [2] Mr. Anderson argues that the specific statute, the Limited Entry Act, controls the general statute, the Exemptions Act, because where two statutes conflict, the specific statute should prevail regardless of whether it was passed prior to the general statute, unless it appears that the legislature intended to make the general act controlling. State, Department of Highways v. Green, 586 P.2d 595, 602 (Alaska 1978), aff'd sub. nom., 823 Square Feet v. State, 660 P.2d 443 (Alaska 1983). As we conclude from our analysis of the legislature's intent in enacting the relevant statutes, we believe the legislature intended the general Exemptions Act to prevail in this type of case.