La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881 (2026)

General exemptions from seizure

✓ laws through the 2025 Regular Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§3881. General exemptions from seizure

            A. The following income or property of a debtor is exempt from seizure under any writ, mandate, or process whatsoever, except as otherwise herein provided:

            (1)(a) Seventy-five percent of his disposable earnings for any week, but in no case shall this exemption be less than an amount in disposable earnings which is equal to thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable or a multiple or fraction thereof, according to whether the employee's pay period is greater or less than one week. However, the exemption from disposable earnings for the payment of a current or past due support obligation, or both, for a child or children is fifty percent of disposable earnings, and the exemption from seizure of the disposable earnings for the payment of a current or past due support obligation, or both, for a spouse or former spouse is sixty percent of the disposable earnings. For purposes of this Subsection, if the Department of Children and Family Services is providing support enforcement services to the spouse and a judgment or order for support includes an obligation for both a child or children and a spouse or former spouse, or in any case wherein the judgment or order does not clearly indicate which amount is attributable to support of the child or children and which amount is attributable to support of the spouse or former spouse, the support obligation shall be treated as if it is exclusively for the support of a child or children.

            (b) The term "disposable earnings" means that part of the earnings of any individual remaining after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts required by law to be withheld and which amounts are reasonable and are being deducted in the usual course of business at the time the garnishment is served upon the employer for the purpose of providing benefits for retirement, medical insurance coverage, life insurance coverage and which amounts are legally due or owed to the employer in the usual course of business at the time the garnishment is served.

            (2) That property necessary to the exercise of a trade, calling, or profession by which he earns his livelihood, which shall be limited to the following:

            (a) Tools.

            (b) Instruments.

            (c) Books.

            (d) One utility trailer.

            (e) Repealed by Acts 2014, No. 322, §2.

            (3) The personal servitude of habitation and the usufruct under Article 223 of the Civil Code.

            (4)(a) The clothing, bedding, linen, chinaware, nonsterling silverware, glassware, living room, bedroom, and dining room furniture, cooking stove, heating and cooling equipment, one noncommercial sewing machine, equipment for required therapy, kitchen utensils, pressing irons, washers, dryers, refrigerators, deep freezers, electric or otherwise, used by him or a member of his family.

            (b) The family portraits.

            (c) His military accoutrements.

            (d) The musical instruments played or practiced on by him or a member of his family.

            (e) The poultry, fowl, and one cow kept by him for the use of his family.

            (f) All dogs, cats, and other household pets.

            (g) All firearms, arms and ammunition, and accessories thereto, not exceeding a total maximum value of two thousand five hundred dollars, which may be used for any purpose.

            (5) Any wedding or engagement rings worn by either spouse, provided the value of the ring does not exceed five thousand dollars.

            (6) Federal earned income tax credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit, except for seizure by the Department of Revenue or arrears in child support payments.

            (7) Seven thousand five hundred dollars in equity value for one motor vehicle per household used by the debtor and his family household for any purpose. The equity value of the motor vehicle shall be based on the NADA retail value for the particular year, make, and model.

            (8) Seven thousand five hundred dollars in equity value for one motor vehicle per household which vehicle is substantially modified, equipped, or fitted for the purposes of adapting its use to the physical disability of the debtor or his family and is used by the debtor or his family for the transporting of such person with a disability for any use.

            (9) The proceeds from a property insurance policy received as a result of damage caused by a gubernatorially declared disaster to an asset considered exempt under this Section and that are held separately in an escrow account identified as insurance proceeds paid from the damage of an exempt asset shall be considered exempt to the same extent that the value of the underlying asset is considered exempt.

            (10) Any consumer stimulus payments directly received by the debtor pursuant to federal law enacted to provide for COVID-19 relief, except for seizure of spousal or child support payments. This Paragraph shall not apply to payments received by the debtor as unemployment compensation.

            B.(1) In cases instituted under the provisions of Title 11 of the United States Code, entitled "Bankruptcy", there shall be exempt from the property of the estate of an individual debtor only that property and income which is exempt under the laws of the state of Louisiana and under federal laws other than 11 U.S.C. 522(d).

            (2) No property upon which a debtor has voluntarily granted a lien shall, to the extent of the balance due on the debt secured thereby, be subject to the provisions of this Chapter or be exempt from forced sale under process of law.

            (3) Proceeds from the involuntary sale or distribution of personal property that is exempt from seizure under the laws of this state, made at or after the filing of a petition under any Chapter of Title 11 of the United States Code, shall remain exempt for purposes of state law exemptions, as applicable under 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(2)(A). For purposes of this Subsection, "involuntary sale" shall mean any non-consensual sale or disposition of property.

            C. The state of Louisiana expressly waives any immunity from suit insofar as the garnishment of the nonexempt portion of the wages, salaries, commissions, or other compensation of public officials, whether elected or appointed, public employees, or contractors is concerned, of itself, its agencies, boards, commissions, political subdivisions, public corporations, and municipal corporations.

            D.(1) Except as provided in Paragraph (2) of this Subsection and in R.S. 11:292, the following shall be exempt from all liability for any debt except alimony and child support: all pensions, all tax-deferred arrangements, annuity contracts, and all proceeds of and payments under all tax-deferred arrangements and annuity contracts, as defined in Paragraph (3) of this Subsection.

            (2) No contribution to a tax-deferred arrangement or to an annuity contract, as defined in Paragraph (3) of this Subsection, shall be exempt if made less than one calendar year of the date of filing for bankruptcy, whether voluntary or involuntary, or the date writs of seizure are filed against the tax-deferred arrangement or annuity contract. A transfer from one tax-deferred arrangement to another or from one annuity contract to another shall not be considered a contribution for purposes of this Paragraph.

            (3) The term "tax-deferred arrangement" includes all individual retirement accounts or individual retirement annuities of any variety or name, whether authorized now or in the future in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or the corresponding provisions of any future United States income tax law, including balances rolled over from any other tax-deferred arrangement as defined herein, money purchase pension plans, defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, Keogh plans, simplified employee pension (SEP) plans, simple retirement account (SIMPLE) plans, Roth IRAs, or any other plan of any variety or name, whether authorized now or in the future in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or the corresponding provisions of any future United States income tax law, under which United States income tax on the tax-deferred arrangement is deferred. The term "annuity contract" shall have the same definition as defined in R.S. 22:912(B).

            Acts 1960, No. 32, §6, eff. Jan. 1, 1961; Acts 1961, No. 25, §1; Acts 1977, No. 360, §1; Acts 1978, No. 563, §1; Acts 1979, No. 596, §1; Acts 1980, No. 764, §9; Acts 1981, Ex.Sess., No. 36, §8, eff. Nov. 19, 1981; Acts 1982, No. 670, §1; Acts 1982, No. 704, §1, eff. Aug. 2, 1982; Acts 1983, No. 108, §1; Acts 1983, No. 178, §1; Acts 1985, No. 532, §1; Acts 1986, No. 303, §2; Acts 1990, No. 495, §1; Acts 1991, No. 155, §1; Acts 1991, No. 796, §1; Acts 1991, No. 856, §1, eff. July 23, 1991; Acts 1992, No. 829, §1; Acts 1999, No. 63, §1; Acts 2003, No. 470, §1; Acts 2004, No. 60, §1; Acts 2004, No. 468, §1, eff. June 24, 2004; Acts 2006, No. 601, §1; Acts 2006, No. 753, §1; Acts 2008, No. 415, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 2009; Acts 2010, No. 634, §2, eff. July 1, 2010; Acts 2014, No. 322, §§1, 2; Acts 2019, No. 197, §1, eff. June 11, 2019; Acts 2020, No. 44, §1, eff. June 4, 2020.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 143 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case: In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996). · cites it 44× “R.S. 13:3881.” The Court took the matter under advisement for purposes of trying to figure out the answer and, if such could be accomplished, to so advise the parties to this proceeding and the other trustees within this district.”
In Re Black, 225 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1998). · cites it 29× “00, as being exempt, pursuant to R.S. § 13:3881. J.D.’s timely filed a proof of claim asserting an unsecured claim in the amount of $12,628.”
Mexic v. Mexic, 808 So. 2d 685 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 19× “R.S. 13:3881 and La. R.S. 20:33 as said statutes were worded on the date of seizure, December 11, 1998 and/or as said statutes were amended by virtue of Act 63 of 1999.”
In Re Ballard, 238 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1999). · cites it 11× “” 80 On appeal the state circuit court characterizes the debtors’ contention to be “that said rental payment[s] constitute earnings which are 75% exempt from seizure pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3881.” 81 The court found “this argument to be without merit.”
In re Burns, 482 B.R. 164 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2012). · cites it 18× “R.S. § 13:3881. Trustee argues that the proceeds of the lawsuit are not wages, but simply the products of an incorporeal right not exempt under Louisiana law.”
In Re White, 352 B.R. 633 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2006). · cites it 4× “R.S. § 13:3881 and therefore is not a vehicle for personal use.”
In Re Romano, 350 B.R. 276 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2005). · cites it 6× “Both vehicles are claimed as exempt under the provisions of La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2), which exempts property necessary to the trade, calling or professions of the debtor.”
Aetna Fin. Co. v. Antoine, 343 So. 2d 1195 (La. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 7× “The Antoines seek to arrest the sale of seized pieces of household furnishings which are exempt under LSA-R.S. 13:3881. [1] The debtors contend that the statutory exemption covering the seized household property [2] has not been waived by the granting of the chattel mortgage.”
Matter of Mmahat, 110 B.R. 236 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1990). · cites it 13× “R.S. 13:3881 by claiming as exempt the contents of several living rooms and more bedrooms than necessary for use by family members.”
Welltech, Inc. v. Abadie, 683 So. 2d 809 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “R.S. 13:3881(D). [1] *810 The facts of this case are as follows: WellTech, Inc.”
WT Grant Co. v. Mitchell, 269 So. 2d 186 (La. 1972). · cites it 12× “R.S. 13:3881. [1] This enactment is found within Title 13 ("Courts and Judicial Procedures") of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.”
In re Everett, 520 B.R. 498 (E.D. La. 2014). · cites it 11× “La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3881 (D)(2)-(3). . See In re Taylor, No.”
Show all 143 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(0): 1 case
Southard v. Belnue, Inc., 618 So. 2d 27 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(1): 3 cases
Am. Fin. Corp. of Coushatta, Inc. v. Small, 250 So. 2d 768 (La. Ct. App. 1971).
Excel Baronne Disc., Inc. v. Montana, 279 So. 2d 229 (La. Ct. App. 1973).
Natchitoches Collections, Inc. v. Gorum, 274 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 1973).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(2): 8 cases
In the Matter of Robert Henry Allen, Jr., & Mary Lou Allen, Debtors. Robert Henry Allen, Jr., & Mary Lou Allen v. Hale Cnty. State Bank, 725 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1984).
In Re Evans, 25 B.R. 105 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1982).
In Re Babcock, 9 B.R. 475 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1981).
WT Grant Co. v. Mitchell, 269 So. 2d 186 (La. 1972). “R.S. 13:3881. [1] This enactment is found within Title 13 ("Courts and Judicial Procedures") of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.”
Cox v. Smith, 275 So. 2d 459 (La. Ct. App. 1973).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(4): 2 cases
In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996). “R.S. 13:3881.” The Court took the matter under advisement for purposes of trying to figure out the answer and, if such could be accomplished, to so advise the parties to this proceeding and the other trustees within this district.”
Ideal Loan of New Orleans, Inc. v. Johnson, 218 So. 2d 634 (La. Ct. App. 1969).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A): 6 cases
In Re Ballard, 238 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1999). “” 80 On appeal the state circuit court characterizes the debtors’ contention to be “that said rental payment[s] constitute earnings which are 75% exempt from seizure pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3881.” 81 The court found “this argument to be without merit.”
In Re Hendrick, 45 B.R. 965 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1985).
McClanahan v. Kimball (In Re Kimball), 2 B.R. 560 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1980).
Chashoudian v. Pate, 17 So. 3d 49 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
In Re Manso, 348 B.R. 74 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(1): 2 cases
In Re Ballard, 238 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1999). “” 80 On appeal the state circuit court characterizes the debtors’ contention to be “that said rental payment[s] constitute earnings which are 75% exempt from seizure pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3881.” 81 The court found “this argument to be without merit.”
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Joseph T. Lofton & Natasha Starks Reversed; Reversed; Vacated; Remanded. Marcotte, J., concurs with reasons set forth by J. Ellender., 386 So. 3d 1263 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2): 12 cases
In Re Romano, 350 B.R. 276 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2005). “Both vehicles are claimed as exempt under the provisions of La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2), which exempts property necessary to the trade, calling or professions of the debtor.”
Lightfoot v. Landry (In Re Landry), 350 B.R. 51 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2006).
In Re Racca, 40 B.R. 622 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1984).
Matter of Mmahat, 110 B.R. 236 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1990). “R.S. 13:3881 by claiming as exempt the contents of several living rooms and more bedrooms than necessary for use by family members.”
In Re Baker, 71 B.R. 312 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1987).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2)(a): 5 cases
In Re Romano, 350 B.R. 276 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2005). “Both vehicles are claimed as exempt under the provisions of La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2), which exempts property necessary to the trade, calling or professions of the debtor.”
In Re Zimmel, 185 B.R. 786 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995).
In Re Ehlen, 202 B.R. 742 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1996).
In Re Vicknair, 315 B.R. 822 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2004).
In Re Savoie, 351 B.R. 392 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2)(d): 5 cases
In Re Romano, 350 B.R. 276 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2005). “Both vehicles are claimed as exempt under the provisions of La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3881(A)(2), which exempts property necessary to the trade, calling or professions of the debtor.”
In Re Black, 225 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1998). “00, as being exempt, pursuant to R.S. § 13:3881. J.D.’s timely filed a proof of claim asserting an unsecured claim in the amount of $12,628.”
In Re Manso, 348 B.R. 74 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2005).
In Re Savoie, 351 B.R. 392 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2006).
Wilson v. Bryan, 734 So. 2d 1214 (La. 1999).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(4)(a): 3 cases
Matter of Mmahat, 110 B.R. 236 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1990). “R.S. 13:3881 by claiming as exempt the contents of several living rooms and more bedrooms than necessary for use by family members.”
In Re Ballard, 238 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1999). “” 80 On appeal the state circuit court characterizes the debtors’ contention to be “that said rental payment[s] constitute earnings which are 75% exempt from seizure pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3881.” 81 The court found “this argument to be without merit.”
In Re Baker, 71 B.R. 312 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1987).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(4)(c): 1 case
In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996). “R.S. 13:3881.” The Court took the matter under advisement for purposes of trying to figure out the answer and, if such could be accomplished, to so advise the parties to this proceeding and the other trustees within this district.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(4)(e): 3 cases
In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996). “R.S. 13:3881.” The Court took the matter under advisement for purposes of trying to figure out the answer and, if such could be accomplished, to so advise the parties to this proceeding and the other trustees within this district.”
In the Matter Of: Horace E. Wilson Alyne Dale Wilson, Debtors. Horace E. Wilson Alyne Dale Wilson v. Brent Bryan Jennifer Bryan Barber, 162 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 1998).
Wilson v. Bryan, 734 So. 2d 1214 (La. 1999).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(4)(f): 1 case
Chashoudian v. Pate, 17 So. 3d 49 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(5): 1 case
In Re Robinson, 352 B.R. 436 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(6): 2 cases
Williamson v. Murray (In re Murray), 506 B.R. 129 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2014).
Bianca Ann Medina, No. 22-10233 (Bankr. D.N.M. Dec. 16, 2022).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(7): 2 cases
In re Gilica, 530 B.R. 429 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2015).
Sikes v. Samuel, 559 B.R. 135 (W.D. La. 2016).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(8): 1 case
In re Gilica, 530 B.R. 429 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2015).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(l)(a): 2 cases
In re Burns, 482 B.R. 164 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2012). “R.S. § 13:3881. Trustee argues that the proceeds of the lawsuit are not wages, but simply the products of an incorporeal right not exempt under Louisiana law.”
De La Vergne v. De La Vergne, 662 So. 2d 32 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(A)(l)(b): 1 case
De La Vergne v. De La Vergne, 662 So. 2d 32 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(B): 7 cases
In the Matter of James A. Maddox, Debtors. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc. v. James A. Maddox, Jr., & Harold J. Barkley, Jr., Tr., 15 F.3d 1347 (5th Cir. 1994).
In Re Hendrick, 45 B.R. 965 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1985).
Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,927, 10 tex.bankr.ct.rep. 199 in the Matter of Ronald Wischan, Debtor. Ronald Wischan v. David v. Adler, in the Matter of Philip De Nicola, Debtor. Philip De Nicola v. David v. Adler, 77 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 1996).
Trowbridge v. Fascio, 718 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
Wischan v. Adler (In re Wischan), 77 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 1996).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(B)(1): 11 cases
Matter of Young, 64 B.R. 611 (E.D. La. 1986).
Martin Sheehan v. Keith Ash, 889 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2018).
In Re Black, 225 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1998). “00, as being exempt, pursuant to R.S. § 13:3881. J.D.’s timely filed a proof of claim asserting an unsecured claim in the amount of $12,628.”
In Re McCollum, 363 B.R. 789 (E.D. La. 2007).
In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996). “R.S. 13:3881.” The Court took the matter under advisement for purposes of trying to figure out the answer and, if such could be accomplished, to so advise the parties to this proceeding and the other trustees within this district.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(D): 14 cases
Welltech, Inc. v. Abadie, 683 So. 2d 809 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “R.S. 13:3881(D). [1] *810 The facts of this case are as follows: WellTech, Inc.”
Loftice v. Loftice, 985 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
In re Everett, 520 B.R. 498 (E.D. La. 2014). “La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3881 (D)(2)-(3). . See In re Taylor, No.”
Mexic v. Mexic, 808 So. 2d 685 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 13:3881 and La. R.S. 20:33 as said statutes were worded on the date of seizure, December 11, 1998 and/or as said statutes were amended by virtue of Act 63 of 1999.”
In Re Orso, 219 B.R. 402 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1998).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(D)(1): 13 cases
In Re: Orso, 283 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2000).
Cashio v. Tollin, 686 So. 2d 1066 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
Canfield v. Orso, 214 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2000).
WellTech, Inc. v. Abadie, 666 So. 2d 1237 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
Loftice v. Loftice, 985 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(D)(2): 1 case
In Re Clement, 327 B.R. 249 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(D)(3): 2 cases
Mexic v. Mexic, 808 So. 2d 685 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 13:3881 and La. R.S. 20:33 as said statutes were worded on the date of seizure, December 11, 1998 and/or as said statutes were amended by virtue of Act 63 of 1999.”
In Re Clement, 327 B.R. 249 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(a)(2): 1 case
In Re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1996). “R.S. 13:3881.” The Court took the matter under advisement for purposes of trying to figure out the answer and, if such could be accomplished, to so advise the parties to this proceeding and the other trustees within this district.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(d)(1): 1 case
Cashio v. Tollin, 712 So. 2d 254 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3881(l)(a): 1 case
Sinclair v. Hodge, 417 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2005).
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.