Legal Opinion

Brosamer v. Mark

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1990No. 27S02-9011-CV-700PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

The question presented is whether the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1) (1988), protects pension funds from garnishment after they are deposited in a pensioner's bank account. We hold that such funds are not protected.

Donald and Cheryl Mark sued Harold Brosamer in the Grant County Court seeking unpaid rent. On November 6, 1986, the trial court entered judgment against Bro-samer for $718.00 plus costs. Brosamer did not pay. The plaintiffs instituted a proceeding supplemental leading to a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension FundSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Tenneco Inc. v. First Virginia Bank of TidewaterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
  4. Brosamer v. MarkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Perkins v. KocherIndiana Court of Appeals · 1988

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Eickhoff v. EickhoffSupreme Court of Georgia · 1993
  2. NCNB Financial Services, Inc. v. ShumateDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1993
  3. State v. PulastySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
  4. Florence Lake Investments v. BergNebraska Supreme Court · 2022
  5. In Re MillerUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API