Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Richard Gerald Rousey, Et Ux. v. Jill R. Jacoway

• 2004 • 544 U.S. 320 • Rehnquist Court
In the 2004 case of Richard Gerald Rousey, et ux. v. Jill R. Jacoway, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, Mr and Mrs Rousey, who sought to exempt their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) from bankruptcy estate under section 522(d)(10)(E) of Bankruptcy Code which allows debtors to exclude certain benefits that are reasonably necessary for their support during retirement. The court held that IRAs were similar to other forms of retirement savings protected by this provision...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 2004
Docket: 03-1407
544 U.S. 320
125 S. Ct. 1561
161 L. Ed. 2d 563
2005 U.S. LEXIS 2933
Argued: Dec 01, 2004

Richard Gerald Rousey, Et Ux. v. Jill R. Jacoway

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Questions presented:
SCOTUS Records

03-1407 ROUSEY V. JACOWAY DECISION BELOW: 347 F3d 689 CERT. GRANTED 6/7/2004 QUESTION PRESENTED: Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the three-way circuit conflict over whether and to what extent Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are exempt from a bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(10)(E)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 02-3505

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 2004 case of Richard Gerald Rousey, et ux. v. Jill R. Jacoway, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, Mr and Mrs Rousey, who sought to exempt their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) from bankruptcy estate under section 522(d)(10)(E) of Bankruptcy Code which allows debtors to exclude certain benefits that are reasonably necessary for their support during retirement. The court held that IRAs were similar to other forms of retirement savings protected by this provision because they provide income security for retirees and thus could be excluded from a bankruptcy estate if deemed essential for survival post-retirement.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Rousey v. Jacoway, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 522(d)(10)(E) was too broad and inconsistent with Congress' intent. He contended that this section should only apply to funds needed for day-to-day support or necessary living expenses, not retirement accounts which are typically used as a source of income in later life rather than immediate sustenance. He also pointed out that allowing debtors to shield their entire retirement savings from creditors could lead to abuse of bankruptcy protections. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on tax law definitions in interpreting bankruptcy provisions, arguing these two areas have different purposes and thus require separate interpretations.

Opinion written by Justice CThomas
Decided: Apr 04, 2005
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms