Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 11-604A (2026)
Pension money exempt.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Pension money exempt.
(1) It is the policy of the state of Idaho to ensure the well-being of its citizens by protecting retirement income to which they are or may become entitled. For that purpose generally and pursuant to the authority granted to the state of Idaho under 11 U.S.C. section 522(b)(2), the exemptions in this section relating to retirement benefits are provided.
(2) Unless otherwise provided by federal law, any money received by any citizen of the state of Idaho as a pension from the government of the United States, whether the money be in the actual possession of a citizen or be deposited or loaned, shall be exempt from execution, attachment, garnishment, seizure, or other levy by or under any legal process whatever. When a debtor dies, or absconds, and leaves his family any money exempted by this subsection, the money shall be exempt to the family as provided in this subsection. This subsection shall not apply to any child support collection actions, if otherwise permitted by federal law.
(3) The right of a person to a pension, annuity, or retirement allowance or disability allowance, or death benefits, or any optional benefit, or any other right accrued or accruing to any citizen of the state of Idaho under any employee benefit plan, and any fund created by the benefit plan or arrangement, shall be exempt from execution, attachment, garnishment, seizure, or other levy by or under any legal process whatever. This subsection shall not apply to any child support collection actions, if otherwise permitted by federal law. This subsection shall permit benefits under any such plan or arrangement to be payable to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant in the plan to the extent expressly provided for in a qualified domestic relations order that meets the requirements for those orders under the plan, or, in the case of benefits payable under a plan described in sections 403(b), 408, 408A or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or section 409 of the Internal Revenue Code as in effect before January 1, 1984, to the extent provided in any order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction that provides for maintenance or support. This subsection shall not prohibit actions against an employee benefit plan or fund for valid obligations incurred by the plan or fund for the benefit of the plan or fund.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the term "employee benefit plan" means:
(a) Assets held, payments made, and amounts payable under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract, providing benefits by reason of age, illness, disability, or length of service;
(b) Any plan or arrangement, whether funded by a trust, an annuity contract, an insurance contract, or an individual account, that is described in sections 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or section 409 of the Internal Revenue Code as in effect before January 1, 1984. The term "employee benefit plan" also means any rights accruing on account of money paid currently or in advance pursuant to a college savings program described in chapter 54, title 33, Idaho Code.
(5) An employee benefit plan shall be deemed to be a spendthrift trust, regardless of the source of funds, the relationship between the beneficiary and the trustee or custodian of the plan, or the ability of the debtor to withdraw, borrow or otherwise become entitled to benefits from the plan before retirement. This subsection shall permit benefits under any such plan or arrangement to be payable to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant in the plan to the extent expressly provided for in a qualified domestic relations order that meets the requirements for those orders under the plan, or, in the case of benefits payable under a plan described in sections 403(b), 408, 408A or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or section 409 of the Internal Revenue Code as in effect before 1984, to the extent provided in any order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction that provides home maintenance or support.
(6) Unless contrary to applicable federal law, nothing contained in subsection (3), (4) or (5) of this section shall be construed as a termination or limitation of a spouse’s community property interest in an individual retirement account held in the name of, or on account of, the other spouse, the "account holder spouse." At the death of the nonaccount holder spouse, the account holder spouse may transfer or distribute the community property interest of the nonaccount holder spouse in the account holder spouse’s individual retirement account to the nonaccount holder spouse’s estate, testamentary trust, inter vivos trust, or other successor or successors pursuant to the last will of the nonaccount holder spouse, or the law of intestate succession if applicable, and that distributee may, but shall not be required to, obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, including a nonjudicial dispute resolution agreement, or other order, entered to confirm the distribution. For purposes of subsection (3) of this section, the distributee of the nonaccount holder spouse’s community property interest in an individual retirement account shall be considered a person entitled to the full protection of subsection (3) of this section. The nonaccount holder spouse’s consent to a beneficiary designation by the account holder spouse with respect to an individual retirement account shall not, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, be deemed a release, gift, relinquishment, termination, limitation or transfer of the nonaccount holder spouse’s community property interest in an individual retirement account. For purposes of this subsection, the term "nonaccount holder spouse" means the spouse of the person in whose name the individual retirement account is maintained. The term "individual retirement account" includes an individual retirement account and an individual retirement annuity both as described in section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, a Roth individual retirement account as described in section 408A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and an individual retirement bond as described in section 409 of the Internal Revenue Code as in effect before January 1, 1984.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016).
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016). “Except for the above exceptions, Idaho Code section 11-604A does not make a distinction between an alimony obligation created by court order or by agreement, but only requires that the payment from the plan be provided for in a QDRO and meet the requirements for those orders…”
In re Smith, 570 B.R. 844 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2017). “If they were qualified contributions under § 408, they are exempt under § 11-604A. However IRA “contributions will not be accepted for the taxable year .”
In Re Merrill, 431 B.R. 239 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009). “The question presented by these facts is, since the funds were continuously exempt under either Idaho Code § 11-207 or § 11-604A until they were withdrawn from the IRA and deposited into the bank account, were the funds still protected from seizure by Trustee when Debtor’s…”
Gugino v. Orlando (In Re Ganier), 403 B.R. 79 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009). “This asset was claimed as exempt under Idaho Code 11-604A on Debtors’ schedule C.”
In Re Estes, 254 B.R. 261 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000). “The exemption is claimed under " Idaho Code § 11 — 604(l)(e)” rather than the proper statute, § 11-604A. However, no objection was timely raised to the Debtor's claim of exemption.”
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting (Idaho 2016). “Except for the above exceptions, Idaho Code section 11-604A does not make a distinction between an alimony obligation created by court order or by agreement, but only requires that the payment from the plan be provided for in a QDRO and meet the requirements for those orders…”
Monson v. Monson (Idaho 2025). “ditors, or other matter relating to the administration, settlement, or final disposition of a nonprobate asset under [the UPC]; and (v) The resolution of any matter referencing this chapter, including a determination of any questions relating to the ownership or distribution of…”
Monson v. Monson (Idaho 2026). “ditors, or other matter relating to the administration, settlement, or final disposition of a nonprobate asset under [the UPC]; and (v) The resolution of any matter referencing this chapter, including a determination of any questions relating to the ownership or distribution of…”
In re Acarregui, 572 B.R. 247 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2017). “Debtor points to the Statement of Purpose from 2001 Senate Bill 1118 amending the former version of § 11-604A to support her position. Debtor’s Mem.”
— Idaho Code § 11-604A(3) — 2 cases
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016). “Except for the above exceptions, Idaho Code section 11-604A does not make a distinction between an alimony obligation created by court order or by agreement, but only requires that the payment from the plan be provided for in a QDRO and meet the requirements for those orders…”
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting (Idaho 2016). “Except for the above exceptions, Idaho Code section 11-604A does not make a distinction between an alimony obligation created by court order or by agreement, but only requires that the payment from the plan be provided for in a QDRO and meet the requirements for those orders…”
— Idaho Code § 11-604A(6) — 2 cases
Monson v. Monson (Idaho 2025). “ditors, or other matter relating to the administration, settlement, or final disposition of a nonprobate asset under [the UPC]; and (v) The resolution of any matter referencing this chapter, including a determination of any questions relating to the ownership or distribution of…”
Monson v. Monson (Idaho 2026). “ditors, or other matter relating to the administration, settlement, or final disposition of a nonprobate asset under [the UPC]; and (v) The resolution of any matter referencing this chapter, including a determination of any questions relating to the ownership or distribution of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.