because it is not a “similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service.” In re Trawick, 497 B.R. 572, 589 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2013) (abrogated in part, Clark v. Rameker, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2242, 189 L.Ed.2d 157 (2014)). The Trawick court reasoned that an inherited IRA is not exempt because it is not on account of a debtor’s age for the following reasons: (i) an inherited IRA requires immediate distributions unrelated to the debtor’s age; (ii) the beneficiary may make no contributions to the account; (iii) the beneficiary may not roll the funds over into another retirement plan; and (iv) none of the other factors (illness, disability, death, length or service) apply to inherited IRAs. Id. See also In re Kirchen, 344 B.R. 908, 914 (E.D.Wisc.2006)(<HOLDING>). In In re Greenfield, 289 B.R. 146, 147
holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors holding that a debtors inherited ira could not be exempt under a wisconsin statute because the source of the fund was immediately payable regardless of debtors age or retirement status holding that debtors additional retirement fund was not reasonably necessary holding that debtors could not exempt under  522d1 proceeds from the prepetition sale of their home holding that a debtors  522d1 exemption was invalid when the debtor exempted proceeds from the prepetition sale of the debtors marital home which were paid to a judgment creditor with an attachment on the debtors interest in the home