{ "id": 5626796, "name": "GERALD SHRADER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MAULTZ, Defendant-Appellant.-(BRIDGEVIEW BANK, Garnishee.)", "name_abbreviation": "Shrader v. Maultz", "decision_date": "1978-03-13", "docket_number": "No. 77-153", "first_page": "484", "last_page": "487", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "58 Ill. App. 3d 484" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 1325", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811183 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 N.E.2d 910", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 2d 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5278117 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/51/0097-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 A.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.J. Super. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Super.", "case_ids": [ 295625 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-super/116/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 U.S. 159", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166226 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/370/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7407", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "et seq." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 413", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6176077 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" }, { "page": "611" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Stat. 1305", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 U.S.C. \u00a7231", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "m" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 A.2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 Pa. Super. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 458347 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/160/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 U.S.C. \u00a7228", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a) et seq." } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 500, "char_count": 8339, "ocr_confidence": 0.9, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5103365400920872e-07, "percentile": 0.6673474013349813 }, "sha256": "0d13f1d250f36f30911040205f0658c6ebf5d59eac15e9a1ce40a62aa8cdb046", "simhash": "1:b14ce299b6761dec", "word_count": 1352 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:59.686785+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GERALD SHRADER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MAULTZ, Defendant-Appellant.\u2014(BRIDGEVIEW BANK, Garnishee.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Gerald Shrader obtained a default judgment against defendant Leo Maultz for damages arising out of an automobile collision. Plaintiff successfully filed an affidavit of garnishment and summons on defendant\u2019s bank account for the amount of the judgment. The account consisted solely of funds derived from defendant\u2019s pension under the Railroad Retirement Act.\nDefendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the garnishment was denied. Also dismissed was defendant\u2019s subsequent motion to reconsider. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in garnishing his pension inasmuch as it is exempt from garnishment under the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act.\nWe reverse and remand.\nThe facts are not disputed. On April 21,1976, plaintiff Gerald Shrader obtained a default judgment against defendant Leo Maultz in the amount of $589.94 plus costs. The lawsuit arose out of an automobile collision between the parties. On October 1, 1976, plaintiff filed an affidavit of garnishment and summons on the garnishee Bridgeview Bank for *533.71. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and defendant moved to dismiss the garnishment.\nIn his motion to dismiss, defendant argued that the funds held by the garnishee bank were exempt from garnishment since they consisted solely of a pension received by defendant under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 (45 U.S.C. \u00a7228(a) et seq. (1970)) and that this was his only source of income. Nevertheless, relying on Commonwealth v. Berfield (1947), 160 Pa. Super. 438, 51 A.2d 523, the trial court held that the exemption did not apply to benefits actually paid to the recipient.\nThe Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, under which defendant receives his pension, provides in part:\n\u201c[N]o annuity or supplemental annuity shall be assignable or be subject to any tax or to garnishment, attachment or other legal process under any circumstances whatsoever 9 9 9.\u201d (45 U.S.C. \u00a7231 (m) (Supp. IV 1974).)\nThe sole question is whether the cited section affords protection to benefits that have been paid to the recipient. We believe that it does.\nIn 1974, Congress amended the Railroad Retirement Act so as to eliminate the possibility that a person might simultaneously receive benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Social Security Act. (Act of October 16, 1974, Pub. Law 93-445, 88 Stat. 1305.) Scrutinizing the legislative history of the amendment, it is clear that the two systems are to be integrated. The Senate Report provides:\n\u201cA major purpose of the new Railroad Retirement Act is to eliminate with respect to future service the \u2018windfall\u2019 element in cases where benefits are payable to a single individual under both the Railroad Retirement Act and the Social Security Act. To accomplish this purpose, subsection (m) of section 3 provides that the social security level component of an employee\u2019s annuity 000 will be reduced by the amount of any monthly insurance benefit which the employee actually receives under the Social Security Act. Thus railroad employees, like employees in other major private industries, will, in the future receive retirement benefits * 9 9 supplemental to, rather than additional to, social security benefits.\u201d (3 U.S. Cong. & Adm. News 5738 (1974).)\nWith this in mind, the protection afforded recipients under the Railroad Retirement Act must be analyzed in terms of the protection afforded recipients under the Social Security Act.\nIn Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board (1973), 409 U.S. 413, 34 L. Ed. 2d 608, 93 S. Ct. 590, the Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. \u00a7301 et seq. (1970)) barred the State of New Jersey from garnishing Federal disability insurance paid to the plaintiff and deposited in his bank account. That case also involved the interpretation of a statute exempting pension benefits from garnishment:\n\u201cThe right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferrable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.\u201d (42 U.S.C. \u00a7407 (1970).)\nIn holding that the funds could not be garnished, the court stated:\n\u201cThe protection afforded by Sec. 407 is to \u2018moneys paid\u2019 and we think the analogy to veterans\u2019 benefits exemptions which we reviewed in Porter v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159, is relevant here. We held in that case that veterans\u2019 benefits deposited in a savings and loan association on behalf of a veteran retained the \u2018quality of moneys\u2019 and had not become a permanent investment.\u201d (409 U.S. 413, 416, 34 L. Ed. 2d 608, 611, 93 S. Ct. 590.)\nIn Philpott, as in Porter, the funds on deposit that were sought to be garnished were readily withdrawable and retained the \u201cquality of money.\u201d Likewise, defendant\u2019s bank deposits in this case should also be protected, since they too were readily withdrawable and were not in any way converted into permanent investments.\nIn Freedom Finance Co. v. Fleckenstein (1971), 116 N.J. Super. 428, 282 A.2d 458, the court was faced with the same issue presented here. In holding that pension funds paid to a recipient under the Railroad Retirement Act could not be garnished, the court stated that exemption statutes should be construed liberally in favor of the pensioner:\n\u201cThe purpose of the exemption is to protect from dissipation the usually small amounts which pensioners and their families receive to carry them through their later years, when often, they have little if any income from other sources. * * * ft ft ft\nThis court therefore adopts the view that the intent of the exemption in question is not limited to funds before they reach the pensioner but also covers monies derived from the pension payments in the hands of the pensioner.\u201d (116 N.J. Super. 428, 432, 282 A.2d 458, 460.)\nWe believe this to be the better view, particularly in light of the facts in the present case, where all of the funds in defendant\u2019s bank account were derived from his pension under the Railroad Retirement Act and said pension was his only source of income. See East Moline Works Credit Union v. Linn (1964), 51 Ill. App. 2d 97, 200 N.E.2d 910.\nFreedom Finance is also noteworthy in that it specifically rejected the views expressed in Commonwealth v. Berfield (1947), 160 Pa. Super. 438, 51 A.2d 523, the case relied on by the circuit court in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. In Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania court held that the exemption only applied to funds not yet paid to the pensioner. The sole purpose of the exemption, the court reasoned, was to relieve the Federal agency of the burden of handling funds to which legal process might attach. We believe this view to be contrary to the philosophy concerning such statute in Illinois. See East Moline Works Credit Union v. Linn (1964), 51 Ill. App. 2d 97, 200 N.E.2d 910.\nFurther, the equal protection clause is not violated by the fact that benefits paid under a pension plan for public employees may be immune from ganishment, while private pension benefits are not. There are reasonable and conceivable bases for differentiating between private and public annuitants and pensioners in regard to the granting of garnishment and attachment exemptions. Friedman & Rochester, Ltd. v. Walsh (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 413, 367 N.E.2d 1325.\nThis court therefore adopts the view that the intent of the exemption in question is not limited to the funds before they reach the pensioner, but also includes monies derived from the pension payments in the hands of the pensioner.\nAccordingly, the order of the circuit court of Cook County denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the garnishment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.\nOrder reversed; cause remanded.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and O\u2019CONNOR, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Susan M. Sitter and Thomas Grippando, both of Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., of Maywood, for appellant.", "Paul J. Cronin, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GERALD SHRADER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MAULTZ, Defendant-Appellant.\u2014(BRIDGEVIEW BANK, Garnishee.)\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 77-153\nOpinion filed March 13, 1978.\nSusan M. Sitter and Thomas Grippando, both of Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., of Maywood, for appellant.\nPaul J. Cronin, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0484-01", "first_page_order": 506, "last_page_order": 509 }