Cases from the textbook final exam

Cases from the textbook final exam - Cases from the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cases from the textbook Chapter 33: Agency Formation and Duties 33 - 1: Granite Properties v. Granite Investment Company et Al. 220 Ill.App.3d 711 (1991) TOPIC: Agency by implied authority FACTS: M. Yandle filed a general appearance on behalf of Granite investment even though she was not in charge of the client but only the associate of Granite Investment's usual lawyer Rex Carr. Moreover, she signed the document "SMY Rex Carr". ISSUE: Had the attorney the authority to file a general appearance on behalf of the defendants ? HOLDING: Yes, Affirmed REASONING: Implied authority is defined as "Actual authority circumstantially proved". The party alleging an agency relationship must prove it by preponderance of the evidence. Longstading relationship with the law firm Granite Investment knew Carr was on vacation Granite Investment did not take any action regarding the matter Granite Investment heard that Yandle was handling the situation and did not react At the same time, Yandle signed other documents on behalf of Granite Investment 33 - 2: Rousey v. Jacoway United States Supreme Court 544 U.S. 320 (2005) Facts: Richard and Betty Jo Rousey stopped working and their employer required their employer-sponsored pension plans to be taken as lump sums. The Rouseys deposited the two lump sums into two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Several years later, the Rouseys filed joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed the IRAs as exempt. Both the trustee and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel agreed that the IRAs were not exempt. Multiple Appellate courts disagreed on the issue so the case ended up in the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether debtors (Rouseys) can exempt assets in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to Section 522(d)(10)(E). Holding: Yes, according to the two requirements of Section 522(d)(10)(E), the Rouseys meet both as defined below. Reasoning: Section 522(d)(10)(E) provides that a debtor may withdraw from the bankruptcy estate his “right to receive – (E) a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor…” Under these terms, Justice Thomas found first that the requirement of payment based “on account of” age fit with the IRA’s requirement that accountholders incur a 10% penalty when funds are withdrawn before the age of 59. Once an account holder turns 59, this condition is removed, therefore the Rouseys’ right to the balance of their IRAs is a right to payment “on account of” age. Secondly, Justice Thomas found that because the IRA’s functioned as a device “similar” to the stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, etc., as all of which concern income that substitutes for wages. The lack of wages between ages 59 and 70 (when the IRAs are accessible) signifies that the IRA is a substitute for wages.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Concurrence/dissent: None. Personal analysis: When you take a look at Section 522(d)(10)(E), you can see the two
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 9

Cases from the textbook final exam - Cases from the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online