Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 11-607 (2026)
Claims enforceable against exempt property.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Claims enforceable against exempt property.
(1) Notwithstanding other provisions of this act:
(a) A creditor may make a levy against exempt property except property described in section 11-603, Idaho Code, to enforce a claim for:
1. Alimony, support, or maintenance;
2. Unpaid earnings of up to one (1) month’s compensation or the full-time equivalent of one (1) month’s compensation for personal services of an employee;
3. State or local taxes;
4. Civil damages for offenses punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary, or for malicious or intentional injury to persons or property, or for damages resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle for which the defendant is convicted of reckless driving, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, or driving while driver’s license has been suspended or revoked, or claims for obtaining money or property by false pretenses or on credit by intentionally making materially false statements in writing respecting financial condition; or
5. Rent for any kind of dwelling place; claims for food and lodging; and
(b) A creditor may make a levy against exempt property to enforce a claim for:
1. The purchase price of the property or a loan made for the express purpose of enabling an individual to purchase property and used for that purpose; and
2. Labor or materials furnished to make, repair, improve, preserve, store, or transport the property.
(c) The department of health and welfare, bureau of child support enforcement may make a levy against exempt property described in subsection (6) of section 11-603, Idaho Code, to enforce a claim for child support or spousal support as defined in chapter 12, title 7, Idaho Code.
(2) This act does not affect any statutory lien or security interest in exempt property. Such a security agreement shall not be invalidated in or affected by any legal proceedings, including those under the federal bankruptcy act, involving the debtor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016).
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. §§ 11-607(1)(a),11-604A(3). Regardless of whether a support obligation was created by court order or provided for by agreement, it was not Congress’s intent that ERISA be used as a tool for a person to evade his or her familial support obligations.”
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018). “§ 3703 (authorizing "the taking and seizure of the goods and chattels" for alimony arrearages). JUSTICE LEHRMANN also sites to a Texas continuing legal education paper and the Texas Practice Series.”
Williams v. Blue Cross of Idaho, 260 P.3d 1186 (Idaho 2011). “For example, Williams cites to I.C. § 11-607, which provides a list of creditor claims that are enforceable against exempt property.”
In Re Velasquez, 44 B.R. 1021 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1984). “Also, because Idaho exemption statutes exist independently of I.C. § 11-607(2), the application of § 522(f) is not affected by I.”
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting (Idaho 2016). “I.C. §§ 11-607(1)(a),11-604A(3). Regardless of whether a support obligation was created by court order or provided for by agreement, it was not Congress’s intent that ERISA be used as a tool for a person to evade his or her familial support obligations.”
Powell v. Crypto Traders Mgmt., LLC (D. Idaho 2021). “” I.C. § 11-607. Here, the Cuttings are not entitled to claim the Jeep and the Truck as exempt property.”
In Re Kinnemore, 181 B.R. 516 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1995). “What, then, is the effect of § 11-607 in relation to the Bankruptcy Code’s Ken avoidance provisions? The Supreme Court has addressed whether a state may define exempt property in such a way as to specifically exclude protection against specific types of creditor claims in Owen v.”
— Idaho Code § 11-607(1)(a) — 2 cases
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. §§ 11-607(1)(a),11-604A(3). Regardless of whether a support obligation was created by court order or provided for by agreement, it was not Congress’s intent that ERISA be used as a tool for a person to evade his or her familial support obligations.”
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting (Idaho 2016). “I.C. §§ 11-607(1)(a),11-604A(3). Regardless of whether a support obligation was created by court order or provided for by agreement, it was not Congress’s intent that ERISA be used as a tool for a person to evade his or her familial support obligations.”
— Idaho Code § 11-607(2) — 1 case
In Re Velasquez, 44 B.R. 1021 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1984). “Also, because Idaho exemption statutes exist independently of I.C. § 11-607(2), the application of § 522(f) is not affected by I.”
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.