James A Patterson, Jr. and Pharaba L. Patterson

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re:
James A. Patterson, Jr., and
Pharaba L. Patterson,
Debtors.
) 	Case No. 10-31791
)
) 	Chapter 7
)
)
) 	JUDGE MARY ANN WHIPPLE
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This case came before the court for hearing on the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion Objecting to
Exemptions (“Objection”) [Doc. # 22], and Debtors’ response [Doc. # 28]. 	The Trustee and Debtors’
attorney attended the hearing in person. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Evidence [Doc. # 32] and
have agreed that the court should decide the Objection on the stipulated facts contained therein and
documentary evidence attached thereto.
The district court has jurisdiction over this Chapter 7 case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) as a case
under Title 11. It has been referred to this court by the district court under its general order of reference.
28 U.S.C. § 157(a); General Order 84-1 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
A proceeding regarding exemptions from property of the estate is a core proceeding that the court may hear
and decide. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, the Trustee’s Objection will
be overruled.
Debtors filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on March 23, 2010. Four
days before filing, on March 19, 2010, Debtors received their 2009 federal income tax refund in the amount
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings
and analysis of this court the document set forth below. This document has been
entered electronically in the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.
Dated: September 10 2010
10-31791-maw Doc 33 FILED 09/10/10 ENTERED 09/10/10 14:24:02 Page 1 of 4

of $4,905.00 by direct deposit into their checking account. [Doc. # 32, ¶ 2]. 	Their income tax refund
included $3,890.00 in Earned Income Credit and $1,009.00 in Additional Child Tax Credit. [Id., ¶ 8].
Immediately before the income tax refund was deposited, the balance in Debtors’ checking account was
$362.23. 	[See id., Ex. B attached thereto]. 	After the deposit but before Debtors filed their petition,
withdrawals were made from the checking account in the total amount of $1,512.13, leaving a balance of
$3,755.10 at the time of filing. [Id., ¶ 4 and Ex. B, p. 1 attached thereto]. Although Debtors had three other
bank accounts, each of those accounts had zero balances on the date of filing. [Id., ¶ 4]. On their bankruptcy
Schedule C, Debtors claim exemptions under Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(9)(g) in the amount of
$4,899.00 against monies in their checking account.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
As authorized by 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2), the Ohio legislature opted out of the federal exemptions
provided in § 522(d). See Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.662. 	As a result, debtors for whom the applicable
exemption law under § 522(b)(3)(A) is Ohio law must claim exemptions under the relevant Ohio statutes
and under applicable non-bankruptcy federal law. Ohio exemption law applies to Debtors as they have been
domiciled in this state for more than the 730 days preceding the date of the filing of their petition. See 11
U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A); Doc. # 1, p. 34, SOFA question 15.
Under Bankruptcy Rule 4003(c), the party objecting to the exemption, in this case the Trustee, has
the burden of establishing that the debtor is not entitled to the claimed exemption. In re Andrews , 301 B.R.
211, 213 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003). In making this determination, and in order to further the fresh-start
policy of the Bankruptcy Code, exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in a debtor's favor. Id.
Ohio’s exemption statute provides that “[e]very person who is domiciled in this state may hold
property exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order, as follows:
“[t]he person's interest in . . . [p]ayments under section 24 or 32 of the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986,”
100 Stat. 2085, 26 U.S.C. 1, as amended. Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for the earned
income credit while section 24 provides for, among other things, a refundable credit, referred to as the
additional child tax credit. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 24(d) and 32.
Although the Trustee does not dispute that the income tax refund deposited into Debtors’ bank
account consisted of the earned income credit and additional child tax credit in the amount of $4,899.00,
the Trustee argues that those funds lost their exempt status when they were deposited into that account,
commingled with funds from other sources and spent, at least in part, as cash. Debtors, on the other hand,
contend that the funds retained their tax exempt status since the source of the funds is 	known or is
2
10-31791-maw Doc 33 FILED 09/10/10 ENTERED 09/10/10 14:24:02 Page 2 of 4

reasonably traceable.
The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether benefits received by an
individual that were otherwise exempt under a federal exemption statute retained their exempt status when
deposited into a bank account. See Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962); Philpott
v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413 (1973). In Porter, the Court held that a veteran’s disability
compensation remained exempt after being deposited into a savings and loan association account. The
Court held that because “legislation of this type should be liberally construed . . . to protect funds granted
by the Congress for the maintenance and support of the beneficiaries thereof,” the deposits “should remain
inviolate.” Id at 162. The Court stated:
The Congress, we believe, intended that veterans in the safekeeping of their benefits should
be able to utilize those normal modes adopted by the community for that purpose-provided
the benefit funds, regardless of the technicalities of title and other formalities, are readily
available as needed for support and maintenance, actually retain the qualities of moneys, and
have not been converted into permanent investments.
Id. Relying on the reasoning in Porter, the Supreme Court held in Philpott that a depositor’s social security
disability benefits retained their exempt status after being deposited into the individual’s bank account.
Philpott, 409 U.S. at 416-17.
Consistent with these United States Supreme Court decisions, the Ohio Supreme Court in Daugherty
v. Central Trust Co. of Northeastern Ohio, N.A., 28 Ohio St. 3d 441 (1986), addressed the exempt nature
of personal earnings and concluded that “statutorily exempt funds do not lose their exempt status when
deposited in a personal checking account . . . so long as the source of the exempt funds is known or
reasonably traceable.” Daugherty, 29 Ohio St. 3d at 445, 504 N.E.2d at 1103. The court explained:
The legislature’s purpose, in exempting certain property from court action brought by
creditors, was to protect funds intended primarily for maintenance and support of the
debtor’s family. (Citation omitted). This legislative intent would be frustrated if exempt
funds were automatically deprived of their statutory immunity when deposited in a checking
account which a depositor commonly maintains in order to pay by check those regular
subsistence expenses he incurs.
Id. Since the parties had agreed that the funds in the debtor’s checking account were from personal earnings
that were exempt under the Ohio exemption statute, the Daugherty court held that the deposited funds were
exempt. Id. In addition, the court noted that the funds on deposit retained their exempt status because they
also met the test set forth in Porter, that is, they were “‘readily available as needed for support and
maintenance,’ retained their quality as monies and were not converted into a permanent investment.” Id.
at n.3.
3
10-31791-maw Doc 33 FILED 09/10/10 ENTERED 09/10/10 14:24:02 Page 3 of 4

The court finds the reasoning of the above cited cases persuasive and equally applicable to the
claimed exemption in this case. Under such reasoning, to the extent that the source of the funds in Debtors
checking account on the date of filing their bankruptcy petition is the refundable additional child tax credit
and earned income credit, the funds retain their exempt status under Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(9)(g).
And under Ohio law, those funds remain exempt even if they are commingled with non-exempt funds
deposited in that account if the funds are reasonably traceable to those income tax credits. See Daugherty,
29 Ohio St. 3d at 445; First Nat’l Master Charge v. Gilardi, 44 Ohio App. 2d 383, 385-86 (1975) (stating
it is “obvious” that tracing of monies on deposit is required to determine the amount attributable to exempt
welfare funds); cf. NCNB Fin’l Servs., Inc. v. Shumate, 829 F. Supp. 178, 181 (W.D. Va. 1993) (finding
funds exempt that are reasonably traceable to social security income); In re Moore, 214 B.R. 628, 631
(Bankr. D. Kan. 1997) (same).
In determining the nature of the funds on deposit in Debtors’ checking account at the time their
bankruptcy petition was filed, the court finds use of the first-in, first out method of accounting appropriate
to trace the source of the funds in the account. See In re Lichtenberger, 337 B.R. 322, 326 (Bankr. C.D. Ill.
2006) (“[g]uided by the principle that exemptions are to be construed liberally in favor of debtors,” the court
applied the first-in, first-out method to determine the source of funds in the debtor’s bank account);
Shumate, 829 F. Supp. at 181 (using the first-in, first-out method in determining whether funds could be
traced to social security benefits); United States v. Griffith, 584 F.3d 1004, 1021 (10th Cir. 2009) (finding
VA funds commingled in account with other funds will retain their VA character as long as they are readily
traceable and may be accounted for with a standard accounting method, such as first-in, first-out tracing).
Immediately before the deposit, the balance in Debtors’ checking account was $362.23. After the income
tax refund was deposited the balance was $5,267.23. However, before the date of filing, withdrawals were
made from the account in the total amount of $1,512.13, leaving a balance of $3,755.10 at the time of filing.
Applying the first-in, first-out method, this entire balance consists of payments received under the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for the earned income credit and additional child tax credit.
Debtors are, therefore, entitled to exempt the entire balance of funds in their checking account on the date
of filing.
A separate order in accordance with this memorandum of decision will be entered by the court.
4
10-31791-maw Doc 33 FILED 09/10/10 ENTERED 09/10/10 14:24:02 Page 4 of 4