Senate Bill 101 would expand legal protections for two types of tax-advantaged savings accounts: 529 education savings and investment accounts and ABLE accounts. It creates a new exemption in Chapter 1C so that funds held in those accounts, and funds withdrawn and used for a qualifying purpose, generally cannot be reached by creditors through liens, attachment, garnishment, levy, seizure, involuntary sale, or other judgment enforcement. The bill also repeals a related existing exemption provision and makes the account-protection changes apply to actions filed on or after September 1, 2025.
The bill also adds protections for living organ donors. It prohibits insurers from denying coverage, limiting coverage, charging different rates, or otherwise discriminating against a person solely because that person is a living organ donor, including for health, life, accident and health, disability, disability income, and long-term care insurance. In addition, it requires the State Human Resources Commission and other governing boards to establish paid leave policies for permanent full-time and part-time State employees, public school employees, and community college employees who serve as living organ donors or bone marrow donors. Eligible employees may receive up to 30 days of paid leave for organ donation and seven days for bone marrow donation, subject to service requirements and reporting obligations.
The bill’s impact on state law is to strengthen asset protection for education and disability-related savings accounts and to create new employment and insurance protections for organ donors. It amends Chapter 1C, Chapter 58, and Chapter 126 of the General Statutes, and it imposes administrative duties on the State Human Resources Commission, the State Board of Education, the State Board of Community Colleges, and state agencies to implement and report on the leave program. The insurance provisions apply to policies issued, renewed, or amended after the effective date, while the leave provisions take effect when the act becomes law.
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The bill passed second reading in the Senate 45-0 and later passed second reading in the House 110-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate organized opposition or major amendments in the supplied materials.
Any likely points of contention would center on the scope and cost of the paid leave mandate for state and school personnel, the administrative burden of implementing and reporting the program, and the extent of creditor exemptions for 529 and ABLE funds. However, based on the unanimous votes, those issues did not appear to generate significant resistance in the legislative action reflected here.
This bill amends North Carolina law to exempt qualifying 529 education savings and investment accounts and ABLE accounts from most creditor claims and judgment enforcement, while preserving enforcement for funds not used for a qualifying purpose or obtained through fraud or other unlawful conduct. It also adds a new insurance nondiscrimination rule for living organ donors and requires paid leave policies for eligible state, public school, and community college employees who donate organs or bone marrow. The bill affects Chapters 1C, 58, 126, and related administrative rules and reporting requirements.
The bill appears to have been received very favorably. The recorded votes were unanimous in both chambers, indicating strong support and no recorded opposition in the available history. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote totals suggest the measure was broadly viewed as a consumer-protection and donor-support bill.
Potential areas of contention include whether the expanded exemption for 529 and ABLE accounts could complicate creditor recovery, and whether the paid leave benefit for state and school employees creates fiscal or administrative costs. Insurers could also view the living organ donor nondiscrimination provision as limiting underwriting flexibility, though the bill specifies that discrimination is barred only when based solely on donor status and without additional actuarial risk. Despite these possible issues, the unanimous votes suggest no significant organized opposition in the materials provided.