## Facts

- Billy L. Hobbs, a Nebraska State Patrol trooper, sexually assaulted C.M., a minor.
- Hobbs was criminally convicted and sentenced to 25 to 30 years’ imprisonment.
- J.M., as guardian and conservator for C.M., obtained a $325,000 civil judgment against Hobbs for damages arising from the assault.
- Hobbs did not satisfy the judgment.
- Hobbs continued to receive benefits under the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement System.
- J.M. sought an order in aid of execution requiring Hobbs to apply his monthly retirement benefits toward the judgment.
- Hobbs objected, asserting the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement Act exempts benefits from garnishment, attachment, levy, and any other legal process.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding the statutory exemption barred J.M.’s requested relief.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court took the appeal directly after granting a petition to bypass the Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement Act’s exemption for benefits a person is “entitled to receive” bars a judgment creditor from using an order in aid of execution to compel payment from those benefits.
2. Whether an order in aid of execution constitutes “any other process of law” within the Act’s exemption language.
3. Whether courts may recognize an equitable exception to the exemption based on the nature of the underlying tort judgment.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the order in aid of execution.
- The court held the Act’s exemption language is broad and plainly bars use of legal process to reach State Patrol retirement benefits.
- The court concluded an order in aid of execution is a “process of law” covered by the exemption.
- The court rejected the argument that directing Hobbs to pay, rather than directly attaching the benefit, avoids the exemption.
- The court declined to create a tort-based exception absent legislative authorization, even given the seriousness of Hobbs’s conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory exemption language protecting retirement benefits from “garnishment, attachment, levy, or any other process of law whatsoever” is construed broadly to bar both direct and indirect collection devices aimed at those benefits.
- An order in aid of execution is a judgment-enforcement mechanism and therefore qualifies as “process of law” when used to compel application of a debtor’s property to a judgment.
- Specific statutory exemptions control over general judgment-enforcement statutes that otherwise permit execution against a debtor’s nonexempt property.
- Courts may not create equitable exceptions to an unambiguous legislative exemption based on the character of the creditor’s claim or the debtor’s misconduct.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that State Patrol retirement benefits are statutorily exempt from judgment collection efforts and that a creditor cannot use an order in aid of execution to require a judgment debtor to pay a tort judgment from those benefits; any exception must come from the Legislature.


J.M. v. Hobbs, 797 N.W.2d 227 (Neb. 2011)