Summary
noting that cases in which the annuity at issue was a variable annuity or in which the annuity carried a guaranteed rate of return were more "investment like"
Summary of this case from Wallace v. McFarland (In re McFarland)Opinion
No. 11–13115.
2013-03-22
In re Lou Ann CASSELL, Debtor. Robert B. Silliman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Lou Ann Cassell, Defendant–Appellee.
Martha A. Miller, Martha A. Miller, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Eric Edward Thorstenberg, Law Office of Eric Thorstenberg, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant–Appellee.
Martha A. Miller, Martha A. Miller, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Eric Edward Thorstenberg, Law Office of Eric Thorstenberg, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Nos. 1:11–cv–00136–CAP; USBC 10–74119–WLH); Charles A. Pannell, Jr., Judge.
Before CARNES, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
CARNES, Circuit Judge:
We are grateful to the Supreme Court of Georgia for the clear and dispositive answers it has provided in response to the questions that we certified. See Silliman v. Cassell, 292 Ga. 464, 738 S.E.2d 606 (2013). In light of that Court's decision, Lou Ann Cassell's “annuity” is an annuity within the meaning of the Georgia bankruptcyexemption statute, Ga.Code Ann. § 44–13–100(a)(2)(E), and the annuity payments to her are “on account of ... age.” The judgment of the district court is
The bankruptcy trustee has conceded that the third requirement for the exception under the Georgia statute, which is that the payments are “reasonably necessary to the support of the debtor,” has been met.
AFFIRMED.