WPC:" >;?q\ U2?i 蔆T>%Q2q߮#s8 k/EAѣcG)3*0\5qwӱ$Ut!:mf&u"hDjhQ5NCu@2YqpSp ̪!0LҷTx8 cX|=\׶T uI/S<{e@mGͪ7RMxqqyԧm`Кo#?(v{q]H+ސ <?^$ߙ"@հ75 5^pb#èyU9h!J!UҎP3`? 6Ӿe\j,wp*.T0zmZ܋d]9Cd9m+N(m6ZXNEٌS(v& c %j 0 Dp 0GU:U"85 0 mUN nTc N UF ^ w 4 # 2 m4 EK fM aO UBc b  /#E#?;v555 B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8!X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT<4 9Z+ Courier New (F:2$ !XhXXX        0  (A Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular"x0s v0y File3|xUTABLE A<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $ ' Turner0Turner .     HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0     $XXXX      1    _ԀThecourtdeferreditsconsiderationofthecontemptcount  toalaterdate andeventuallydismissedit.  w $XXXX      2    _ ` StartinginApril1994,thecourthadgarnishedaportion  ofDavid'swageseachmonthtopaythejudgment,butthosepayments  stoppedwhenDavidretiredinthefallof1996.   $XXXX      4    _ ` DavidalsoraisedanewargumentthatJenniferhadtaken  thepositionbeforethebankruptcycourtthathis_ERISA_Ԁbenefits  shouldbeexcludedfromhisestatebasedon_ERISA_'santialienation \ provisionand,hence,thatsheshouldbejudicially_estopped_Ԁfrom 2 seekingtheorderatissueinthiscase.David'scounselstatedin X oralargumentbeforeusthathehasabandonedthisargumenton . appeal.     $XXXX      5    _  ` Rule69(a)providesthat"[_p]rocess_Ԁtoenforceajudgment  forthepaymentofmoneyshallbeawritofexecution,unlessthe  courtdirectsotherwise."Davidarguesthattheexceptionfor \ F  situationsinwhich"thecourtdirectsotherwise"appliesonlywhen  executionisaninadequateremedyandsaysthatnosuchshowinghas  beenmadehere.  1 $XXXX      7    _ ` CongressoriginallydelegatedthispowertotheSecretary  ofLabor.29U.S.C.1135(1974).In1978,PresidentCarter,  pursuanttotheReorganizationActof1977,5U.S.C.90112, \ transferredthatauthoritytotheTreasurySecretary, 2 ReorganizationPlanNo.4of1978,reprintedin1978_U.S.C.C.A.N._ X 9814,9815,andCongressratifiedthattransferin1984,Pub.L. . No.98532,98Stat.2705(1984).TheSupremeCourthasrecognized   theTreasuryregulationsasthe"applicableadministrative   regulations"for1056(d)._Guidry_v.SheetMetalWorkers_Nat'l_ `  PensionFund,493U.S.365,37172(1990). z $XXXX      8    _ ` Indeed,since_Hisquierdo_,theSupremeCourthasexpressly  reservedjudgmentonwhether_ERISA_Ԁbenefitsmaybealienatedafter  distribution,seeBoggsv.Boggs,520U.S.833,845(1997), \ suggestingthattheCourtitselfdoesnotview_Hisquierdo_as 2 controllingonthatissue.  $XXXX      6    _ ` DavidarguesthatFloridalawexemptspensionmoneyfrom  allclaimsofcreditorsandfromalllegalprocess,citingFla.  Stat.chs.222.21(2)(a),222.14.ButunderbothRule64andRule \ 69,therelevantlawisthatofMassachusetts,notthatofFlorida. d $XXXX      3    _ ` ThecourtenteredfinaljudgmenttothiseffectonMarch  24,2003. !XXXX  _=Xdd=TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !X XXX(YXX      UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals0(Y  FortheFirstCircuit  T0 XX T  S   `     h   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.022128 K  @hh#JENNIFERHOULT,  G  @<< Plaintiff,Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @!DAVIDPARKSHOULT, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ^ @[Hon.DouglasP.Woodlock,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((Torruella,Lynch,andLipez, G CircuitJudges.  A') ` dE<N ` A O "       JordanL.Shapiro,withwhomEdwardJ.Collins,EricL. 4!$ Shwartz,andShapiro&Henderwereonbrief,forappellant.  "Z%   LauraD'Amato,withwhomAdrienneM.Markham,KevinP. #' O'Flaherty,PamelaL.Signorello,EllenC.Meyer,andGoulston& $( Storrs,P.C.wereonbrief,forappellee. b% ) *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4#  SIH(#- @38159@SJune22,2004 )n$/  RHC)D%0" @38159 @ R(H(#1  (  * !   |-(4? XXX X  8XXdd8*,X` XX*OYOaOY  ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .OnJuly1,1993,afederaljuryin  thedistrictofMassachusettsawardedJenniferHoulta$500,000 x verdictagainstherfather,DavidHoult,forsexuallyabusingher $t throughoutherchildhood. Theverdictwasaffirmedonappealin   Houltv.Hoult,57F.3d1,2(1stCir.1995).Thiscasearises |  fromJennifer'sattempttocollectonthatjudgment,which,almost ( x  elevenyearslater,hasstillnotbeenpaidinfull. $   ` OnMay13,2002,thedistrictcourtfoundthatDavidhad   fraudulentlyconveyedover$130,000inassetstoavoidpayingthe ,|  judgment. Twoweekslater,onMay30,itenteredanorder ( requiringhimtodepositallhisincomeinadesignated  Massachusettsbankaccountandtolimithiswithdrawalsfromthat 0 accountto$2,900permonth,asummeanttocoverhisreasonable , livingexpenses. Daviddidnotappealfromthatorder.Helater  movedinthedistrictcourttostrikefromtheorder# XXXX+ #XXX XԀsocial 4 securitybenefitsandEmployeeRetirementIncomeSecurityAct 0 (ERISA)pensionbenefitsthathereceives,arguingprincipallythat   federalstatutesprohibitthealienationofeachofthosebenefits.  8!" See42U.S.C.407(a)(socialsecurity);29U.S.C.1056(d)(1) "4$ (ERISA).Thecourtdeniedhismotion.David,whohassincebeen $& foundincivilandcriminalcontemptforrefusingtocomplywith <&!( theorder ,nowappealsfromthatdenial. '8#*  ` Wefindthatthedistrictcourtproperlydeniedthe )$, motiontostrikeastoERISAbenefits.ERISA'santialienation @+&. provisiondoesnotapplywhere,ashere,thefundshavealready  beendisbursedtotheplanbeneficiary.Insoholding,wejoin \ fourothercircuitsanddisagreewithone. X  ` Moredifficultquestionsareraisedbythecourt's   refusaltostrikesocialsecuritybenefitsfromtheorder,butwe `  neednotresolvethosequestionshere.Thepartiesstatedtothe  \  districtcourtthatneitherhadanyobjectiontoanarrangement   thatwouldexemptDavid'ssocialsecuritybenefitsfromtheorder d  butwouldreducehis$2,900monthlywithdrawallimitbytheamount `  ofhismonthlysocialsecuritycheck(about$1,400permonth). We   confirmedthisatoralargument.Weaffirmthedenialofthe  motiontostriketheERISApensionbenefitsandremandwith 0 instructionstomodifytheorderastosocialsecuritybenefits. , @tt) I.    ` OnJuly29,1993,fourweeksaftertheverdict,Jennifer P movedforapreliminaryinjunctionbarringDavidandhiscurrent L wife(notJennifer'smother)fromtransferringDavid'sassets   exceptasnecessaryforordinarylivingexpenses. Jenniferalleged T!" that# XXXX+#XXX XshehaddiscoveredthataftershehadfiledsuitinJuly1988# XXXX]#XXX X, #P$ Davidhadstartedtransferringhisassetstoprotectthemfroma $& potentialjudgment. Thedistrictcourtgrantedtheinjunctionon X&!( August4. Daviddidnotappealthatorder. (T#*  ` OnSeptember7,1994,Jenniferfiledasupplemental )%, complaintagainstDavidandhiswifeforfraudulentconveyanceand x+&. civilcontempt. Afivedaybenchtrialwasheldonthefraudulent  conveyanceclaimsinJanuary1996. #  1       \  ` InNovember1996,beforejudgmenthadenteredinthe X fraudulentconveyancetrial,JenniferlearnedthatDavidhad   retiredfromhispositionasaseniorresearchassociateatthe `  MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology(MIT)andhadbegunreceiving  \  approximately$4,800inERISApensionbenefitsfromMITeach   month.< #  2      ׀ OnJanuary27,1997,shemovedtomodifytheAugust4, d  1993preliminaryinjunctiontorequire,interalia,# XXXX#XXX XԀthatDavid ,|  deposithismonthlyERISApensioncheckinadesignatedbank ( accountandlimithiswithdrawalsfromthataccountto$1,700per  month(which,accordingtohistestimonyinthefraudulent 0 conveyancetrial,wastheamountthathecontributedeachmonthto , hisandhiswife'slivingexpenses). Hermotiondidnotmention  socialsecuritybenefits.Thedistrictcourtsaidthatitwould P allowthemotionandrequestedJennifer'scounseltofilea L proposedformoforder.     ` Beforetheorderwasissuedandbeforejudgmententered T!" inthefraudulentconveyancetrial,Davidfiledavoluntary #P$ petitionunderChapter7oftheBankruptcyCode,11U.S.C.101 $& etseq., whichautomaticallystayedthefraudulentconveyance  proceedings.See11U.S.C.362.Thebankruptcycourtruledon \ July2,1999thatDavid'sMITpensionwasnotthepropertyofhis X bankruptcyestate. ItalsoheldonOctober29,1999thatDavid's   judgmentdebttoJenniferandinterestonthatdebtwere `  nondischargeable. Davidappealedbothrulings. Hisappealswere  \  dismissedforlackofprosecution.     ` OnNovember22,1999,Jenniferalertedthedistrictcourt d  tothebankruptcycourt'srulingsandrenewedherrequesttomodify `  theAugust4,1993order. Sheagaindidnotmentionsocial   securitybenefitsinhermotion.Davidopposedthemotion.First,  hearguedthatFlorida,notMassachusetts,lawappliedbecausehe 0 wasaFloridaresidentandmaintainedaFloridaresidencein , additiontohishomeinMassachusetts.HecontendedthatFla.  Stat.chs.222.21(2)(a)and222.14exemptedhisERISApension 4 benefitsfromtheclaimsofallcreditors# XXXXE!#XXX X. Second,hearguedthat 0 theorderwouldeffectivelybeanexecutionofjudgmentandthat   underFed.R.Civ.P.4.1,adistrictcourtsittingin 8!" Massachusettsdidnothavetheauthoritytoexecuteontheassets "4$ ofaFloridaresident.Finally,hearguedthattheproposedorder $& wouldviolateERISA'santialienationprovision,whichstatesthat <&!( "[e]achpensionplanshallprovidethatbenefitsprovidedunderthe '8#*  planmaynotbeassignedoralienated."29U.S.C.1056(d)(1). )$,  ` OnMay13,2002,thecourtentereditsfindingsoffact   andconclusionsoflawastothefraudulentconveyanceclaims, \ findingthatDavidhadfraudulentlyconveyedover$130,000in X assets.b #  3      ׀Twoweekslater,onMay30,2002,thecourtinsertedthe   followinglanguageintotheAugust4,1993preliminaryinjunction: `  0 ` 1.DavidHoultshallplaceallmonies,incomeandfunds  \  hereceivesfromanysourceinasingleMassachuestts's  2  [sic]bankaccountinhisnameonly(the"Account")onor   beforeJune14,2002; ` (#` (# 0 ` 2.DavidHoultshallnotmakeanywithdrawalsfromthe :  Accountexceptfor$2,900permonth;and` ` (#` (# 0 ` 3.DavidHoultshallprovidePlaintiff'sattorney...   with(i)thenameofthebankandtheaccountnumberof  theAccount;(ii)acopyofeachcheckorreceiptwhich h documentsmoniesorincomehereceives;and(iii)acopy > ofthemonthlystatementofactivity(the"Monthly d Statement")relativetotheAccount. :` (#` (# TheordermadenoexceptionforeitherDavid'ssocialsecurityor  hisERISApensionbenefits.Indeed,socialsecuritybenefitsmay B havebeenincludedwithoutthecourtbeingawarethat"allincome" > includedsocialsecuritypayments.   ` DaviddidnotappealtheMay30order.Initially,he F ! simplyrefusedtocomplywiththeorderandwasheldincontempt. !B# AfterhebegantocomplyonJuly3,2002,thecourtpurgedhimof #% thatcontempt.Then,onJuly20,2002,twentydaysafterthetime J% ' forfilinganinterlocutoryappealfromtheMay30orderhad &F") expired,seeFed.R.App.P.4(a)(1)(A), Davidfiledamotionwith (#+ Oa    thedistrictcourttostrikesocialsecurityandERISApension  benefitsfromtheorder.Inthatmotion,hestated,"Theinstant \ motionisdirectedonlytosocialsecurityandpensionbenefits. X Defendantrecognizesthatthe[May30order]remainseffectivewith   respecttoallother'monies,incomeorfunds'hereceivesfromany `  othersource." AstohisERISAbenefits,Davidreiteratedhis  \  earlierargumentsunderFloridalawandunderERISA'santi   alienationprovision. #  4      ׀ Healsoarguedthat,aswritten,theorder d  violatedtheantialienationprovisionoftheSocialSecurityAct, `  whichprovidesthat"noneofthemoneyspaidorpayableorrights   existingunderthistitleshallbesubjecttoexecution,levy, h attachment,garnishment,orotherlegalprocess,ortothe d operationofanybankruptcyorinsolvencylaw."42U.S.C.  407(a). Thiswasthefirsttimetheissueofsocialsecurity l benefitswasarguedtothecourt. h  ` JenniferdefendedtheorderastotheERISAbenefits,  arguing,interalia,thatERISA'santialienationprovisiondoes p  notpreventalienationofbenefitsaftertheyhavebeendistributed !l" tobeneficiaries andthatDavid'scitationtoFloridalawwas "$ inappositebecauseMassachusettslaw,ratherthanFloridalaw, t$& OY    applied. Astothesocialsecuritybenefits,Jenniferarguedthat  theorderdidnotviolatetheSocialSecurityAct'santialienation x provisionbecauseitdidnot"attach"David'ssocialsecurity $t incomebutmerelyrequiredhimtodeposititinadesignatedbank   accountformonitoring. Shesaidthatshe"wouldnotobject, |  however,ifconcreteproofoftheamountofhissocialsecurity ( x  paymentisprovided,toexcludingthatamountfromtherequired $  incomedepositand,concomitantly,reducingthemonthlyamount   Davidmaywithdrawbythatsameamount." David'ssocialsecurity ,|  paymentisabout$1,400permonth; theMay30orderallowedhimto ( withdraw$2,900permonth.   ` AtahearingonDavid'smotiononAugust2,2002,the L districtcourtaskedDavid'scounselwhetherDavidhadany H objectiontoJennifer'sproposal.HesaidthatDaviddidnot. In  theend,though,thecourtdecidedthatitwasnotnecessaryto P adoptJennifer'sproposal and,instead# XXXXZ*#XXX X,simplydeniedDavid's L motion. Thecourtruledthattheorderdidnotneedtobealtered   astosocialsecuritybenefits,reasoningthatDavid'sdisposalof p!" hissocialsecuritybenefitswasnotrestrainedinanywaybecause #l$ his$2,900monthlywithdrawallimitfarexceededthe$1,400he $ & receivedinsocialsecuritybenefits. Nordidtheorder,thecourt t&!( ruled,havetobeamendedastotheERISAbenefits.Thecourtheld  (p#* thatERISA'santialienationprovisionpresentednobaroncethe )%, fundshadbeendistributedtoDavid. Thecourtfurtherdetermined x+&. thatevenifFloridalawapplied,itdidnothelpDavidbecauseits  relevantprovisionsappliedonlytohonestdebtorsandDavid,based \ onhishistoryoffraudulentconveyances,wasnotsuchadebtor.  X  Davidfiledthisappealfromthedenialofhismotiontostrikeon   September3,2002.  `   ` Whilethisappealwaspending,Davidstoppedcomplying  \  withtheMay30order. OnMay14,2003,Jenniferfiledamotionto   holdDavidincivilcontempt,allegingthatDavidhadnotproduced d  anyofthemonthlystatementsrequiredundertheMay30ordersince `  January2003# XXXXB#XXX X . AgrandjuryindictedDavidonAugust27,2003for   threecountsoffelonycriminalcontempt. Theindictmentalleged  thatinJanuary2003Davidstoppeddepositinghisincomeinthe 0 designatedMassachusettsaccountandstartedputtingitina , Floridaaccountinstead;thatDavidexceededhis$2,900withdrawal  limitvirtuallyeverymonthsinceNovember2002;andthat,byMarch 4 2003,therewasonlyabout$23leftintheMassachusettsaccount. 0  OnJanuary16,2004,thedistrictcourtgrantedJennifer'smotion   forcivilcontempt andawarded$46,676# XXXXI#XXX XԀindamages. OnFebruary24, 8!" 2004,Davidpleadedguiltytoallthreecountsoffelonycriminal #P$ contempt.  $& @88) II.  X&!(  ` DaviddoesnotappealfromtheissuanceoftheMay30,  (p#* 2002orderbutinsteadfromthedenialofhismotiontostrike )%, ERISAandsocialsecuritybenefitsfromthatorder. Wereviewthe x+&. denialofamotiontomodifyapreliminaryinjunctionforabuseof  discretion.SeePub.Serv.Co.ofN.H.v.Patch,202F.3d29,32 \ (1stCir.2000);16Wright,Miller&Cooper,FederalPractice& X Procedure3924.2(West1996).Underthatstandard,pureissues   oflawarerevieweddenovo,findingsoffactforclearerror,and `  judgmentcallswithconsiderabledeference.SeeNieves-Marquezv.  \  PuertoRico,353F.3d108,120(1stCir.2004).    ` Davidraisesthreesetsofargumentsonappeal.First, d  hearguesthattheMay30,2002orderconstitutesanimproper `  executionofjudgmentunderFed.R.Civ.P.69(a).Second,he   arguesthattheapplicationoftheMay30ordertohisERISA h pensionbenefitsviolates(1)Floridastatutesthathereadsas d exemptingsuchbenefitsfromcreditors'claims,seeFla.Stat.chs.  222.21(2)(a),222.14;and(2)theantialienationprovisionof l ERISA,29U.S.C.1056(d)(1).Third,hearguesthattheorder's h applicationtohissocialsecuritybenefitsviolatestheanti  alienationprovisionoftheSocialSecurityAct,42U.S.C. p  407(a).Weconsidereachargumentinturn. !l"  3,XX X,X` X3A.0  AuthoritytoentertheMay30order "$(#(# 7,X` X,XX X annuitypaymentsduringretirement,butnotwhenthosefundsare : receivedasalumpsumpaymentbeforeretirement.47F.3dat683.  TheSmithmajorityreliedprimarilyonHisquierdov.Hisquierdo, B 439U.S.572(1979),whichheldthattheantialienationprovision > oftheRailroadRetirementAct(RRA),45U.S.C.231m(a),covers  benefitsaftertheyaredisbursedtobeneficiaries.439U.S.at F ! 583;seealsoSmith,47F.3dat68384. !B#  ` Wereadthestatutedifferently.NothinginERISAorin #% theregulationssupportsadistinctionintheantialienation J% ' provisionbetweenpreretirementlumpsumpaymentsandpost &F") retirementannuitypayments.AndHisquierdoisnotauseful (#+  analogybecauseofdifferencesinlanguagebetweentheanti N*%- alienationprovisionoftheRRAandthatofERISA.TheRRA  provides,inrelevantpart,that: \  0 ` NotwithstandinganyotherlawoftheUnitedStates,orof X anyState,territory,ortheDistrictofColumbia,no . annuityorsupplementalannuityshallbeassignableorbe   subjecttoanytaxortogarnishment,attachment,or   otherlegalprocessunderanycircumstanceswhatsoever, `  norshallthepaymentthereofbeanticipated.u6  ` (#` (# 45U.S.C.231m(a)(emphasisadded).InconcludingthatCongress  2  intended231mtoreachbenefitsafterdistribution,theSupreme   Courtemphasizedthefactthatthestatutewaswrittenbroadlyto :  prohibitcreditorsfromsubjectingtheannuitytoany"legal 6 processunderanycircumstanceswhatsoever."Hisquierdo,439U.S.  at586.NosimilarlysweepinglanguageexistsinERISA'santi > alienationprovision." #  8       :  3,XX X,X` X3C.0  Socialsecuritybenefits (#(# 7,X` X,XX X7 ` Davidalsoarguesthatthedistrictcourt'srefusalto ^ strikesocialsecuritybenefitsfromtheorderviolatestheanti  Z alienationprovisionoftheSocialSecurityAct,42U.S.C.  407(a),whichprovidesthat b ! 0 ` Therightofanypersontoanyfuturepaymentunderthis "^# subchaptershallnotbetransferableorassignable,at "4$ laworinequity,andnoneofthemoneyspaidorpayable # % orrightsexistingunderthissubchaptershallbesubject $&  toexecution,levy,attachment,garnishment,orother f% ' legalprocess,ortotheoperationofanybankruptcyor  insolvencylaw.` (#` (#  Thereisnoquestionthat407(a),unlike1056(d)(1),appliesto 2 benefitsaftertheyhavebeendistributedtobeneficiaries. . SeePhilpottv.EssexCountyWelfareBd.,409U.S.413,41416   (1973). 6    ` Jenniferargues,nonetheless,thattheMay30orderdoes  2  notviolate407(a)becauseitdoesnotconstitutean"execution,   levy,attachment,garnishment,orotherlegalprocess"withinthe :  meaningof407(a).Shecontendsthattheorderimposesno 6 restraintonDavid'sabilitytodisposeofhismonthlysocial  securitycheckbecauseitallowshimtowithdrawthefullamountof > thesocialsecuritycheckafterdepositingitinthedesignated : bankaccount.Hissocialsecuritycheckisapproximately$1,400  permonth;heisallowedtowithdraw$2,900permonth.Theonly B effectoftheorder,Jennifercontends,istotrackDavid'sincome > eachmonth.   ` David,citingRobbins,218F.3dat201,respondsthatthe F ! term"otherlegalprocess"isconstruedexpansivelytocoverall !B# expressorimpliedthreatstoresorttolegalprocessessuchas #% contempt.Hepointsoutthattheorderrequireshim,underthreat J% ' ofcontempt,todeposithisbenefitsinabankaccounteffectively &F") controlledbythecourtandtoreportthosedepositstoJennifer. (#+  That,heargues,isrestraintenoughtotrigger407. N*%-  ` TheSupremeCourthasrecentlyprovidedsomeguidanceon   theinterpretationof"otherlegalprocess"in407.TheCourt \ statedthat X 0 ` "otherlegalprocess"shouldbeunderstoodtobeprocess   muchliketheprocessesofexecution,levy,attachment,   andgarnishment,andataminimum,wouldseemtorequire `  utilizationofsomejudicialorquasijudicialmechanism, 6   thoughnotnecessarilyanelaborateone,bywhichcontrol  \  overpropertypassesfromonepersontoanotherinorder  2  todischargeorsecuredischargeofanallegedlyexisting   oranticipatedliability. ` (#` (# Wash.StateDep'tofSoc.&HealthServs.v.Keffeler,537U.S. :  371,385(2003).ThequestionwhethertheMay30order"passes 6 control"overDavid'ssocialsecuritychecktothecourtisa  difficultone. >  ` Thatquestion,however,isnotonethatweneedto : resolve.BothJenniferandDavidstatedtothedistrictcourtthat  theywouldhavenoobjectiontoanarrangementthatexempted B David'ssocialsecuritybenefitsfromtheMay30order,required > Davidtoreporttheamountofhismonthlysocialsecuritybenefits,# XXXXBo#XXX X  andreducedhis$2,900monthlywithdrawallimitbythatamount. F ! Jennifer'scounselreiteratedthispositiontousduringoral !B# argument# XXXX#XXX X.Inlightoftheparties'mutualamenability,wethink #% thebestsolutionistoremandwithinstructionstoadoptthat J% ' arrangement. &F")  ` WeanticipatethatDavidmayclaimthatheshouldnotbe (#+ requiredunder407eventoreporttheamountofhissocial N*%- securitybenefits.Anysuchargumentwouldfail.Davidhaswaived +J'/ theargumentand,evenhaditbeenpreserved,suchareporting  requirementwouldnotviolate407.Thearrangementtowhich \ Davidhasagreeddependsonhisaccuratereportingoftheamountof X hisbenefits.# XXXX#XXX X   @( III.  `   ` We vacate thedenialofthemotiontostrikeastosocial ( x  securitybenefitsand remand withinstructionstomodifytheorder @  toexemptsocialsecuritybenefits,torequireDavidHoultto   reporttheamountofhissocialsecuritybenefitseachmonth,and d  toreducethemonthlywithdrawallimitbythatamount# XXXX#XXX X.We affirm  ` # XXXX̛#XXX Xthedenialofthemotiontostrikeinallotherrespects.# XXXX;#