Ghai Law Firm
Call for a free consultation:
(770) 792-1000
  • ABOUT
    • Testimonials
    • Join Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
      • Pedestrian Accident
      • Car Accidents
        • Speeding Accident
        • Drinking and Driving Accidents
        • Left Hand Turn Accident
        • Rear-End Collision
        • Reckless Driving Accident
        • Uber Accidents
        • Hit-and-Run Accidents
        • Texting and Driving Accident
          • Texting and Driving Under 18
      • Truck Accident
        • Lane Usage Accident
        • Traumatic Brain Injury
      • Product Liability
        • Defective Drugs
        • Defective Medical Device
      • Premises Liability
        • Slip and Fall Accidents
      • Wrongful Death
      • Dog Bite
    • Bankruptcy
      • Debt Relief
      • Credit Card Debt
      • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
      • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
      • Foreclosure Bankruptcy
      • Free Legal Case Review
      • Medical Bills Bankruptcy
      • Rebuild Your Credit
      • Wage Garnishments
  • Areas We Serve
    • Kennesaw Personal Injury Lawyer
      • Kennesaw Bankruptcy Lawyer
    • Acworth Personal Injury Lawyer
      • Acworth Bankruptcy Lawyer
    • Marietta Personal Injury Lawyer
      • Marietta Bankruptcy Lawyer
    • Smyrna Personal Injury Lawyer
  • FAQs
  • Blog
  • Videos
  • Contact

Judgment Is Considered Domestic Support Obligation

Home » Judgment Is Considered Domestic Support Obligation

 

IN RE: CHARLES MELVIN ADAMS Debtor
SHANNON BRINGHURST Plaintiff
v.
CHARLES MELVIN ADAMS Defendant

CASE NO. 12-30055
AP NO. 12-03004

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY FRANKFORT

Dated: June 28, 2012

CHAPTER 7

OPINION
        Plaintiff Shannon Bringhurst filed this adversary proceeding seeking a determination a debt owed by Defendant Charles Melvin Adams was not subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Bringhurst relies on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) in arguing the debt is excepted from discharge. On May 10, 2012, Bringhurst filed a motion pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 56, made applicable to this proceeding by Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, for summary judgment relative to the nondischargeability of the debt (“Motion”) (Doc. 7).

Entry of a summary decision is proper if the materials in the record show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

The record and the applicable law are sufficient to warrant entry of a summary judgment in favor of Bringhurst and against Adams because the debt at issue is the kind of debt excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(15).

The material facts are not in dispute.

Page 2

FINDINGS OF FACT
        1. Bringhurst is the former spouse of Adams.

2. The parties were married from December 1997 until the marriage was dissolved by Limited Decree of Dissolution of Marriage entered by the Oldham Circuit Court Family Law Division (“Oldham Family Court”) on November 20, 2009 (“Limited Decree”).

3. Adams filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in this Court, styled In Re: Charles Melvin Adams, which was assigned case number 12-30055 (“Bankruptcy Case”).

4. On June 16, 2010, the Oldham Family Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“June 16 Order”), concluding, among other things, Bringhurst was “entitled to a return on her contributions to the marital estate, including, but not limited to, an equitable share of equity in the marital home” because Adams desired to keep the marital home. (Doc. 1, Exhibit A, p. 9). The June 16 Order required Adams “buy-out” Bringhurst’s interest in the marital home and marital vehicles within 90 days of entry of the June 16 Order. (Doc. 1, Exhibit A, p. 10).

5. On August 16, 2011, the Oldham Family Court entered an order (“August 16 Order”) granting a “Common Law Judgment”1 against Adams and in favor of Bringhurst. (Doc. 1, Exhibit B).

For a free legal consultation, call (770) 792-1000

6. The Oldham Family Court entered an order on September 2, 2011 (“September 2 Order”), correcting a clerical mistake in the amount of the judgment awarded by the August 16 Order. The September 2 Order clarified the amount of the judgment against Adams was $56,992.33, with all other terms remaining unchanged from the August 16 Order.

Page 3

7. Bringhurst subsequently filed a motion for contempt against Adams in Oldham Family Court for his failure to comply with the terms of the various orders entered by the Oldham Family Court. On December 21, 2011 (“December 21 Order”), the Oldham Family Court entered an order on the motion for contempt reemphasizing the September 2 Order and adding $5,000.00 to the total established by the September 2 Order. The added sum represented attorney’s fees incurred by Bringhurst in her collection efforts against Adams as allowed by the orders of the Oldham Family Court.

8. The June 16 Order, August 16 Order, September 2 Order and December 21 Order were entered by the Oldham Family Court within the parties’ divorce action and all claims addressed by the orders arose under K.R.S. § 403.010-.350.

9. Bringhurst filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Case stating she is owed $65,011.33 arising from the parties’ marriage and subsequent divorce action.

Click to contact our personal injury lawyers today

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
        In response to the Motion, Adams contends the debt at issue, i.e. the judgment, was not incurred in the course of the divorce or in connection with a divorce decree, is not the type of debt described in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) and is therefore subject to discharge.

Complete a Free Case Evaluation form now

Section 215(3) of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act amended § 523(a)(15) to provide, “obligations to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor (not otherwise described in section 523(a)(5)) incurred in connection with a divorce or separation or related action are nondischargeable irrespective of the debtor’s ability to pay such debts.” H.R. REP. NO. 109-31, pt. 1 (2005). As applied in this adversary proceeding the subsection reads as follows,

(a) A discharge under section 727 . . . of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –
. . . .
(15) to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor and not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a

Page 4

divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, or a determination made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit.

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

The debt that is the subject of this adversary proceeding was created on the entry of the June 16 Order. The June 16 Order establishes beyond dispute that the debt owed by Adams to Bringhurst is in the category of debts excepted from discharge because the amount is a debt to a former spouse, is not the kind of debt described by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), was incurred by the debtor in connection with a divorce and is an “other order of a court of record.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Adams suggests, without support, that the reduction of the debt to a judgment somehow changed the nature of the debt thereby removing it from the category of debts described by § 523(a)(15). Bringhurst was well within her rights to pursue all available avenues to collect the debt owed by Adams. Moving the Oldham Family Court to reduce the debt to a judgment to allow the filing of a notice of judgment lien did not create a new obligation. Immediately before and immediately after the Oldham Family Court entered the August 16 Order Adams was obligated to “buy-out” Bringhurst’s interest in the marital home and marital vehicles.

The debt owed by Adams to Bringhurst falls squarely within the category of debts described by 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(15) and is accordingly not subject to discharge.

The Court shall enter an order of judgment consistent herewith.

Service to all those in the CM/ECF notification
system to receive notice in this case.

The affixing of this Court’s electronic seal below is proof this document has been signed by the Judge and electronically entered by the Clerk in the official record of this case.

Signed By:
Joseph M. Scott, Jr.
Bankruptcy Judge
(jms)
——–

Notes:

1. In the Court’s effort to give effect to every word, Plaintiff’s counsel was asked to explain the meaning of the term “Common Law Judgment” as used in the August 16 Order, which counsel stated was drafted by an attorney in his firm. Counsel was unable to clarify the usage of the phrase “common law” to define the word “judgment.” Ultimately, counsel explained the “common law judgment” was intended to provide a mechanism for Bringhurst to record a judgment lien thereby securing her claim against Adams with real estate owned solely by Adams. This explanation comports with this Court’s usage of the term judgment. Based on the explanation of counsel, the phrase “common law” adds nothing to further define the term “judgment” and is disregarded as surplusage.
——–

 

Call or text (770) 792-1000 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form

Bankruptcy Blog Posts:

Bankruptcy Filings Continuing To Rise In 2010

Due to high unemployment and an uncertain economic climate, consumer bankruptcy filings in America have increased in 2010. According to statistics reported by the American Bankruptcy Institute, a

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Comparison

Good Morning, this is Roger Ghai of www.Chapter7attorneys.com. I wanted to do a little informational video on bankruptcy options. In particular, Chapter 7 bankruptcy options and Chapter 13 bankruptcy

Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – January 2010 Talk Law Radio Show Transcript

Janice: Good afternoon Atlanta and welcome to News & Talk 1380 WAOK. This is Janice Mathis and we’re here this afternoon and every Sat. afternoon at 1pm to talk with one of our lawyers who’s

Difference Between Chapter 13 & Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – March 2010 Talk Law Radio Show Transcript

Janice: Good afternoon Atlanta and welcome to Legal Talk. This is Janice Mathis. This is my favorite hour of the weekend. I learn something new every weekend talking to these brilliant lawyers we have

Bankruptcy FAQ:

Bankruptcy FAQ
Bankruptcy FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions: Table of Contents Who is permitted to file and maintain a chapter 7 case? Who should not file a Chapter 7 case? Is there anything that a person must do

Can Creditors Be Sued For Trying To Collect Debt After You File For Bankruptcy
Can Creditors Be Sued For Trying To Collect Debt After You File For Bankruptcy

The injunction is formally issued pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(a), commonly referred to as the Automatic Stay provision of the bankruptcy code, and it prohibits creditors from making further attempts to

Can Your Home Be Sold In Bankruptcy If You Don’t File Bankruptcy But Your Spouse Files Bankruptcy?
Can Your Home Be Sold In Bankruptcy If You Don’t File Bankruptcy But Your Spouse Files Bankruptcy?

In a recent case, In re Beck Mrs. Beck filed for bankruptcy protection but her husband did not. Together they owned a property which was valued at about $530,000.00. The property had actually been in

Can You Claim A Homestead Exemption In A Home You Do Not Live In?
Can You Claim A Homestead Exemption In A Home You Do Not Live In?

The Chapter 7 trustee objected to Mrs. Goulakos’s claim of exemption because she did not live in the house and because she was not the one who claimed the homestead exemption under Massachusetts

Free Case Evaluation

Convenient and Confidential

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Bankruptcy FAQ

    Bankruptcy FAQ

    Can You Keep Your House If You File For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

    Can You Keep Your House If You File For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

    Can Creditors Be Sued For Trying To Collect Debt After You File For Bankruptcy

    Can Creditors Be Sued For Trying To Collect Debt After You File For Bankruptcy

    Let Ghai Law Fight For You.

    We’re here to provide help when you need us. Fill out this form below and I’ll reach out to discuss your case.

      Ghai Law Firm
      Call for a free consultation:
      (770) 792-1000

      Office Location

      LAW OFFICES OF ROGER GHAI

      1301 SHILOH RD NW STE 430

      KENNESAW GA   30144

      Mon-Fri: 9AM - 6PM

      Important Links

      • About
      • Practice Areas
      • Areas We Serve
      • Contact

      Practice Areas

      Personal Injury Lawyer Bankruptcy Attorney

      Ghai Law Firm

      Cobb County, Marietta, Kennesaw, Acworth

      "The Attorney"

      Site Map
      © Copyright 2023 Law Offices of Roger Ghai
      • ABOUT
        • Testimonials
        • Join Us
      • Practice Areas
        • Personal Injury
          • Pedestrian Accident
          • Car Accidents
            • Speeding Accident
            • Drinking and Driving Accidents
            • Left Hand Turn Accident
            • Rear-End Collision
            • Reckless Driving Accident
            • Uber Accidents
            • Hit-and-Run Accidents
            • Texting and Driving Accident
              • Texting and Driving Under 18
          • Truck Accident
            • Lane Usage Accident
            • Traumatic Brain Injury
          • Product Liability
            • Defective Drugs
            • Defective Medical Device
          • Premises Liability
            • Slip and Fall Accidents
          • Wrongful Death
          • Dog Bite
        • Bankruptcy
          • Debt Relief
          • Credit Card Debt
          • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
          • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
          • Foreclosure Bankruptcy
          • Free Legal Case Review
          • Medical Bills Bankruptcy
          • Rebuild Your Credit
          • Wage Garnishments
      • Areas We Serve
        • Kennesaw Personal Injury Lawyer
          • Kennesaw Bankruptcy Lawyer
        • Acworth Personal Injury Lawyer
          • Acworth Bankruptcy Lawyer
        • Marietta Personal Injury Lawyer
          • Marietta Bankruptcy Lawyer
        • Smyrna Personal Injury Lawyer
      • FAQs
      • Blog
      • Videos
      • Contact