Adams v. Adams
- Summarized by ,
- 11 years 2 weeks ago
- Citation:
- Adams v. Adams, Case Number 13-1636 (7th Cir. Dec. 27, 2013)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) principles apply in discharge exception proceedings pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).”)
- Procedural context:
- The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division held an evidentiary hearing on Debtor’s, James Gregory Adam’s (“Greg”), Objection to the Proof of Claim filed by his ex-wife, Dawn Marie Adams (“Dawn”).
The Bankruptcy Court, sustained the Objection of Greg stating that the Bankruptcy Court can rule upon the value of a claim.
Dawn appealed the bankruptcy court’s ruling to the district court. The district court affirmed, finding that the bankruptcy court had the power to inquire into the validity of Dawn’s claim and that she had failed to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Adams v. Adams, 2013 WL 752928, at *3–4 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2013).
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: Reversed and Remanded.
- Facts:
- Prior to filing a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Dawn and Greg entered into Divorce proceedings in the State of Georgia. In Georgia, Dawn initiated three separate proceedings, which resulted in three separate judgments against Greg.
Instead of appealing the judgments from the Georgia, James filed for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Dawn filed a proof of claim seeking $74,612.25. Greg objected to Dawn’s proof of claim stating he already satisfied the claim. Dawn argued preclusion, stating that the Georgia proceedings should be upheld.
The Bankruptcy Court sustained the objection to Dawn’s proof of claim. Disallowing the claim in its entirety. The District Court upheld the Bankruptcy Court ruling.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that: “Greg Adams had the opportunity to appeal the Georgia state court judgments, he did not avail himself of that opportunity. Instead, he filed for bankruptcy, but that is not a substitute for timely appeals of the state court judgments. The doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars him from using the bankruptcy system to have his defenses reheard despite the state courts’ rejection of those defenses.”
- Judge(s):
- Posner, Rovner and Hamilton
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
