Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 742.47 (2026)

Exemption from attachment, garnishment, levy, or seizure under any legal or equitable process

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

April 6, 2017

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 520 - 131st General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

Except as provided in sections 742.461, 742.462, 742.463, 742.464, 3105.171, 3105.65, and 3115.501 and Chapters 3119., 3121., 3123., and 3125. of the Revised Code, sums of money due or to become due to any individual from the Ohio police and fire pension fund are not liable to attachment, garnishment, the operation of bankruptcy or insolvency laws, levy, or seizure under any legal or equitable process or any other process of law whatsoever, whether those sums remain with the treasurer of the fund or any officer or agent of the board of trustees of the fund or are in the course of transmission to the individual entitled to them, but shall inure wholly to the benefit of that individual.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2008 · leading case: Erb v. Erb, 747 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Erb v. Erb, 747 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 41× “The fund alleged that enforcement of such an order would result in a violation of R.C. 742.47, an antialienation provision of the fund.”

Ricketts v. Ricketts, 673 N.E.2d 156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “, R.C. 742.47. Thus, a QDRO is not an acceptable method for division of a public pension.”

Davis v. Davis, 723 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “1 The Fund argued that the QDRO conflicted with R.C. 742.47, which precludes attachment or seizure of money due or potentially due to members of the Fund.”

Patterson v. Patterson, 784 N.E.2d 1213 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “56 (PERS), and former R.C. 742.47 (the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund [“OPFPF”]).”

Cunningham v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 888 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “{¶ 10} The trial court’s order also violates R.C. 742.47, which states: {¶ 11} “Except as provided in sections 742.”

Erb v. Erb, 2001 Ohio 104 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 41× “The fund alleged that enforcement of such an order would result in a violation of R.C. 742.47, an antialienation provision of the fund.”

In Re Monro, 282 B.R. 841 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 2× “09 (Public Employees Deferred Compensation); O.R.C. § 742.47 (Police and Fire Pension Funds); O.”

Debolt v. Comerica Bank (In Re Debolt), 177 B.R. 31 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1994). “2d 203 (1994); Ohio Rev.Code § 742.47. An Ohio bankruptcy court has recognized the co-ownership principle and that separate property interests are created upon an award of a public employee’s retirement benefit in a pre-bankruptcy divorce proceeding, notwithstanding that…”

Davis v. Montgomery, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 18× “The Pension Fund, through Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery, filed a motion with the Common Pleas Court, seeking the vacation of the QDRO on the ground that the Fund was barred by Ohio Rev.Code § 742.47 from paying benefits to Jeanette Davis.”

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.