State v. Mahmud12/7/1999
movant's properly-pleaded affirmative defense. Id. at 381.
Once the movant has established a right to judgment as a matter of law, the non-movant must demonstrate that one or more of the material facts asserted by the movant as not in dispute is, in fact, genuinely disputed. Id. The non-moving party may not rely on mere allegations and denials of the pleadings, but must use affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Reeves v. Keesler, 921 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996).
In its appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Mahmud. It contends that the court erred in finding that Mr. Mahmud's assets were exempt from reimbursement under section 513.430(10)(f).
The MIRA provides that if a prisoner has sufficient assets to recover not less than ten percent of the estimated cost of care of the prisoner, the attorney general may seek to secure reimbursement for the expenses incurred by the State for the care of the prisoner. Section 217.831.3, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998; State ex rel. Nixon v. McClure, 969 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). Not more than ninety percent of the value of the assets of the prisoner may be used for purposes of securing costs and reimbursement under the MIRA. Section 217.833.1, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998; McClure, 969 S.W.2d at 804. "Assets" are defined under the MIRA as:
Property, tangible or intangible, real or personal, belonging to or due an offender or a former offender, including income or payments to such offender from Social Security , workers' compensation, veterans' compensation, pension benefits, previously earned salary or wages, bonuses, annuities, retirement benefits, or from any other source whatsoever.
Section 217.827(1)(a), RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998. Under these provisions, the funds in Mr. Mahmud's prison account, including those he received as a beneficiary of his deceased mother's IRA , appeared to be subject to reimbursement.
Mr. Mahmud, however, argued, and the trial court agreed, that $4001.80 of the balance of his prison account was exempt from attachment by the State as IRA proceeds payable to a beneficiary under section 513.430(10)(f). The provision provides, in pertinent part:
The following property shall be exempt from attachment and execution to the extent of any person's interest therein:
(10) Such person's right to receive:
(f) Any money or assets, payable to a participant or beneficiary from, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan which is qualified under section ...408...of the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 513.430(10)(f), RSMo 1994. In construing the exemption statute, the primary rule is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers by considering the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. American Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Mo. banc 1999); Badgley v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, 977 S.W.2d 272, 275 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). Absent a statutory definition, the plain and ordinary meaning of a word is derived from a dictionary. Id. The term "payable" is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) as "requiring to be paid." Id. By definition, the phrase "any money or assets, payable to a participant or beneficiary from...a retirement plan" does not encompass money that has previously been paid to, or placed in the possession of, a participant or beneficiary from an IRA. Had the Missouri General Assembly intended to protect from attachment money paid from an IRA it would have explicitly
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|