All contracts of life or endowment insurance or annuities upon the life of any person, or any interest therein, which may hereafter mature and which have been taken out for the benefit of, or made payable by change of beneficiary, transfer, or assignment to, the spouse or children, or any persons dependent upon such person, or an institution or entity described in division (B)(1) of section 3911.09 of the Revised Code, or any creditor, or to a trustee for the benefit of such spouse, children, dependent persons, institution or entity, or creditor, shall be held, together with the proceeds or avails of such contracts, subject to a change of beneficiary if desired, free from all claims of the creditors of such insured person or annuitant. Subject to the statute of limitations, the amount of any premium upon such contracts, endowments, or annuities, paid in fraud of creditors, with interest thereon, shall inure to their benefit from the proceeds of the contracts, but the company issuing any such contract is discharged of all liability thereon by the payment of its proceeds in accordance with its terms, unless, before such payment, written notice is given to it by a creditor, specifying the amount of the claim and the premiums which the creditor alleges have been fraudulently paid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: In Re Kudela, 427 B.R. 643 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2010).
In Re Kudela, 427 B.R. 643 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 41ד” According to the Trustee, “[bjased upon this language, R.C. § 3911.10 only provides an exemption of life insurance proceeds from the creditors of the insured, in this case Debtor’s late husband, Charles R.”
In Re Shaffer, 228 B.R. 892 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 48דOn August 24,1998, a hearing was held on this matter, at which point the Trustee stated that he objected to the Debtor’s exemption on the grounds that the Debtor’s adult son, as the sole beneficiary of the policy, was not a “dependent” as is required for the exemption by O.R.C.…”
In Re Andrews, 301 B.R. 211 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 27דAt issue at this Hearing was the applicability of O.R.C. § 3911.10 which generally confers upon a debtor the right to exempt his or her interest in a life insurance policy so long as the policy is for the benefit of a family member.”
In Re Rhinebolt, 131 B.R. 973 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 24ד10 provides the following exemption for a debtor’s interest in an annuity: All contracts of life or endowment insurance or annuities Upon the life of any person, or any interest therein, which may hereafter mature and which have been taken out for the benefit of, or made payable…”
In Re Peacock, 292 B.R. 593 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 21דOhio Rev.Code Ann. § 3911.10 (Anderson 2001) (emphasis added).”
In Re Fichter, 45 B.R. 534 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 13ד66(A)(6)(b) which exempts life or endowment insurance or annuities upon the life of any person pursuant to O.R.C. § 3911.10. Should the debtors’ previous assertion fail, they then argue in the alternative that the I.”
In Re Bunnell, 322 B.R. 331 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 12ד] As referenced in this statute, a debtor’s right to claim an exemption in a life insurance policy is then limited by O.R.C. § 3911.10; in pertinent part, this section provides: All contracts of life or endowment insurance or annuities upon the life of any person .”
Staats v. Beckman (In Re Beckman), 104 B.R. 866 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989). · cites it 16ד§ 548 (a)(2), the $5,000 Transfer may be avoided; and (4) The whole-life policies issued to Debtors by Bankers (the “Policies”) are not properly exemptible under Ohio law inasmuch as the Insurance Purchase was made in fraud of Debtors’ creditors within the meaning of O.R.C. §…”
In Re Abbott, 466 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2012). · cites it 18ד66(A)(6)(b), which provides an exemption for annuities as set forth in Ohio Rev.Code § 3911.10. 4 Although those provisions are inapplicable to this case, a review of cases addressing the general treatment of annuities lends itself to the analysis of Debtor’s claimed exemption.”
In Re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 5ד05, and a related exemption statute, Ohio Revised Code § 3911.10 2 , and found the provisions extend the exemption to a beneficiary who is a dependent of the debtor, although in that decision, unlike this case, the individual was determined to not be a dependent of the debtor:…”
United States v. Poling, 73 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 17ד§ 6323 (a) as the “holder of a security interest” because its assigned interest in the annuity payments is protected against the claims of a judgment lien creditor of Poling by Ohio Rev.Code § 3911.10 and (2) Poling’s assignment of his right to receive the annuity payments is…”
In Re Quintero, 253 B.R. 832 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 27דFirst, does the contract qualify as an annuity to which the *835 provisions of O.R.C. § 3911.10 pertain? Second, if the contract qualifies as an annuity under O.”
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.