Contact Us for More Information

No California Creditor Protections For Section 529 Education Savings Plans

Posted by Paul D. Woodard | May 05, 2016 | 1 Comment

In the case of bankruptcy, creditor protection for Section 529 Education Savings Plans is provided by federal law, with significant limitations, under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This act excludes from property of the estate all contributions deposited toward a Section 529 Plan for a beneficiary who is the child, grandchild, stepchild, or step-grandchild of the debtor, and as long as the deposits were made at least two years before the bankruptcy was filed and they do not exceed the maximum amount permitted per beneficiary for the program. If the contributions were made between one and two years prior to the bankruptcy filing, Section 529 assets are protected up to $5,000 per beneficiary. These provisions apply to bankruptcy cases filed on or after October 17, 2005.

But what happens to Section 529 Plans if you are a California judgment debtor and have not filed for bankruptcy?

In addition to the federal bankruptcy protections described above, some states have passed statutes that protect Section 529 Plan assets from judgment creditors' claims brought outside of bankruptcy proceedings. However, California is not one of the states that has passed legislation specifying that Section 529 Plans are protected from the creditors of the beneficiary, contributor, and/or the account owner.

In a recently decided appellate decision (April 21, 2016), the Second Appellate District of the State of California held, in a case brought by our firm, resulting in a decision in favor of our client, that Section 529 Plans are not exempt assets under California's comprehensive judgment creditor statute (codified in Code of Civil Procedure sections 680.010 through 724.260). Specifically, in AMBS Diagnostics, LLC v. Timothy O'Brien, the Second Appellate District Court reversed a trial court ruling holding that a judgment creditor's Section 529 Plans were exempt assets similar to private retirement plans.

The appeal, filed by attorneys Paul D. Woodard and Marc S. Schechter of Butterfield Schechter LLP and Thomas M. Monson of Miller, Monson, Peshel, Polacek & Hoshaw, asked the Court to determine (1) whether Section 529 Savings Accounts are exempt from levy under California's enforcement of judgments law and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in exempting the full amount of the debtor's IRA accounts.

The Second Appellate District ruled that the trial court erred in exempting the judgment creditor's Section 529 Plans from execution of levy. This case was a matter of first impression and provides clear guidance to other California trial courts how to rule on a judgment creditor's claim of exemption over Section 529 Plans.

The Court wrote:

Is money that a person sets aside for the “qualified higher education expenses” of his children under Internal Revenue Code section 529 (so-called “section 529 savings accounts”) exempt from the collection efforts under the California Enforcement of Judgments Law, Code of Civil Procedure section 680.010 et seq., of a creditor who has a valid judgment against that person? We conclude it is not.

Ultimately, the Court opined that the four Section 529 savings accounts were not exempt from levy under California's enforcement of judgments law and, with respect to the trial court's finding of full exemption for IRA accounts in a non-bankruptcy setting, that the trial court applied the wrong standard by failing to “weigh or take into consideration [the debtor's] current wages given that the debtor was still many years from retirement, is in good health, and has earned a significant salary in the past.”

About the Author

Paul D. Woodard

Paul Woodard practices in the areas of Employee Benefits, Employee Stock Ownership Plans, Pension and Profit Sharing Plans, ERISA, ERISA Litigation, Business Law, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs), and Estate Planning.


Sandra Whitfield Reply

Posted Mar 08, 2017 at 08:30:24

Thank you for the article. I have little money in my retirement accounts. They are protected in Iowa. Since Iowa and California do not protect 529s, I have been searching for one in another state. I am only putting in a few hundred dollars for my grandson and want it protected (for a love keepsake, even though it will only buy a few small college needs in the future). Otherwise, I might as well leave it in my retirement account.

Leave a Comment

Retirement Plans

We help establish a customized plan that meets regulatory requirements as a tax qualified plan. Following implementation, our attorneys can assist clients and their plan administrator with regular reviews and updates to help with regulatory compliance for the plan's operation, and continued effectiveness in meeting the client's specific goals.


We are dedicated to employee ownership. When you come to us for ESOP services, you receive influential legal counsel who stand beside you to help you stay informed, in compliance, and abreast of the latest developments-all to help you realize your plan goals as fully and effectively as possible.


A QDRO is a specially designed court order that is required for the division of retirement benefits in a family law case. Many family law attorneys do not possess the expertise necessary to divide retirement benefits or stock options upon divorce. We have extensive experience in dividing qualified plans, government plans, IRAs and stock options between the employee spouse and non-employee spouse.

Butterfield Schechter LLP provides the information in this website as a service to its clients and visitors to the site. This website is for information purposes only and is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information in this website is provided "as is," and while the information in this website is updated periodically, additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein, and no guarantee is given that the information provided is correct, complete, or up-to-date. Seek the advice of professional counsel before acting or relying upon any article, form, or information in this web site. To ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. Butterfield Schechter LLP has endeavored to comply with all known legal and ethical requirements in compiling this website. In the event that this communication does not conform with any laws or regulations of any state or country in which it may be received, Butterfield Schechter LLP will not accept legal representation based on this communication from a person in such a state or country. Electronic mail is provided as a convenience in communicating with the attorneys at Butterfield Schechter LLP. Contact by e-mail does not alone create an attorney-client relationship. Please remember Internet e-mail is not secure and messages sent to the firm or any of its employees or attorneys should not contain sensitive or confidential information. Thank you for visiting our site.