United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 24-60014 December 30, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus Ralph Leon Stinson, Jr.,

Defendant, Ellen O. Stinson,

Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:15-CR-20-1 ______________________________ Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge: After Mississippi resident Leon Stinson pled guilty to conspiracy to engage in bank fraud and was ordered to pay restitution, the Government sought to garnish assets including retirement accounts titled solely in the name of Leon’s wife, Ellen. The district court concluded that Ellen’s accounts were marital property in which Leon and Ellen both had a “100% Case: 24-60014 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2024

No. 24-60014

undivided interest.” The court therefore ordered the immediate liquidation of the accounts and transfer of their full cash value to the court clerk. The question is whether, under Mississippi law, a person has a property interest in assets titled solely in his or her spouse’s name that may be garnished under the governing federal statutes. Caselaw and secondary sources strongly suggest that there is no such interest. In Mississippi, property is only classified as “marital property” when a chancery court effectuates “equitable distribution” of a divorcing couple’s assets. Until then, a person does not, simply by virtue of marriage, have an interest in property titled solely in his or her spouse’s name. The district court therefore erred in concluding that Ellen’s accounts were marital property subject to garnishment by the Government. I. After Ralph Leon Stinson, Jr. (Leon) pled guilty in the Southern District of Mississippi to conspiracy to engage in bank fraud, the district court ordered him, jointly and severally with his co-defendant son, to pay more than $3.6 million in restitution. The Government applied for a writ of garnishment to be served upon brokerage firm Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones), pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. The court clerk served the writ on Edward Jones, ordering it to withhold and retain all property in which Leon or his wife, Ellen, had a “substantial nonexempt interest.” Edward Jones answered that it held one individual retirement account (IRA) for the benefit of Leon and three accounts for the benefit of Ellen: a “[f]lex [i]ndividual [a]ccount” worth nearly $2,000, and two IRAs worth more than $150,000

2 Case: 24-60014 Document: 57-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2024

No. 24-60014

combined. 1 Ellen moved to dismiss the writ of garnishment, asserting that Leon has no property interest in her accounts. The district court ordered an evidentiary hearing on Ellen’s motion, expressing its “interest[] in obtaining evidence regarding,” among other things, “contributions made to [Ellen’s] retirement acco