Chamberlain v. Chamberlain
- Summarized by Alexandra Schnapp , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia
- 8 years 2 days ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- No. 17-1121 (10th Circuit, Feb 20,2018) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The debtor's obligation to pay his children’s college expenses qualified as a “domestic support obligation.” In making this determination, the bankruptcy court properly looked to 1) the intent of the parties at the time the debtor agreed to pay the expenses and 2) the substance of the obligation.
- Procedural context:
- When the debtor filed bankruptcy, his ex-wife filed a proof of claim for a priority domestic support obligation. The debtor objected to the claim. The bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it found that over $100,000 of the debt constituted a domestic support obligation. The debtor appealed, and the district court affirmed. The debtor appealed again arguing that his obligation to pay his children’s college expenses did not qualify as a domestic support obligation. The court disagreed and affirmed.
- Facts:
- Debtor was married for 21 years, during which time he worked for Southwest Airlines and his wife stayed home and cared for their 3 children. When they divorced, the debtor agreed to pay his children’s college expenses. The debtor failed to pay his children's college expenses, and his ex-wife filed state court actions to enforce the obligation. The litigation resulted in judgment in favor of the ex-wife. When she started collection activity, the debtor filed bankruptcy.
Debtor's ex-wife filed a proof of claim for the amounts still owed on the debtor's older children's undergraduate student loans and the amount that he had agreed to pay toward his youngest child's college expenses. The ex-wife contended that the amounts constituted priority domestic support obligations pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A). The bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it sustained the debtor's objection to a portion of his ex-wife's claim. The bankruptcy court found, though, that over $100,000 of debt constituted a priority domestic support obligation.
The bankruptcy court found that the parties had intended the college expense obligation to constitute support because the obligation was included in the section of the marital settlement agreement that addressed child support, alimony, and related matters. Additionally, the couple had intended to provide for the children’s education and, given their relative financial capabilities, that could only have been carried out if the debtor assumed the obligation. The bankruptcy court also determined that the debtor was the only parent financially able to pay for the children’s college education and that the obligation was in the nature of support.
- Judge(s):
- Lucero, Bacharach, and Moritz
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!
