Court Opinion

ID: 9699387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:21:50.899647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:49.673679
License: Public Domain

JONES, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring:
In Patterson v. Shumate, the Supreme Court established a two-prong test for determining whether pension benefits in an ERISA-qualified plan are excluded from property of the estate under applicable non-bankruptcy law pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2242, 2247-48, 119 L.Ed.2d 519, 527-28 (1992). First, a court must evaluate whether the ERISA-qualified plan contains an anti-alienation provision which constitutes a restriction on transfer that is enforceable under nonbankruptcy law within the plain meaning of section 541(c)(2). Id. Under this first prong, the Supreme Court in Shumate resolved a conflict in the circuits in holding that “applicable nonbank-ruptcy law” is not limited to state law. 112 S.Ct. at 2246-48, 119 L.Ed.2d at 526-28.
The second step in the analysis posited by the Shumate Court is to determine whether the anti-alienation provision contained in an ERISA-qualified plan satisfies the terms of section 541(c)(2). Shumate, 112 S.Ct. at 2248, 119 L.Ed.2d at 528. In the instant *904appeal it is undisputed that the Debtor has access to the funds in the after-tax account at any time and for any reason. Therefore, the Debtor may be unable to satisfy the second prong of the Shumate analysis which entails subjecting the anti-alienation provision to scrutiny under section 541(c)(2).
However, since this panel is obligated to follow controlling authority on this issue, In re Reuter, 11 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.1993), I respectfully concur.