MACATAWA BANK v. WIPPERFURTH,
Nov 08, 2011OUTCOME: Because the defendants were domiciled in Florida, the court held that the IRA was not 'located within the boundaries of Michigan' and could not be garnished.
The court considered whether a bank could garnish an individual retirement account (IRA) in Michigan when the owners of the account did not reside in Michigan. In this case the bank obtained a judgment ... in Michigan against the defendants, who reside in Florida. The defendants have several IRAs with TD Ameritrade that are sufficient to satisfy the judgment, so the Bank filed a Request for Garnishment naming TD Ameritrade as the garnishee. The defendants argued that the IRAs were exempt from garnishment under Michigan law because they constitute intangible personal property, which is located in the state in which the owner is domiciled.
