In re Hamrick
| Decision Date | 22 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | C/A No. 20-01791-JW |
| Citation | 622 B.R. 659 |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | IN RE: Bradley Christopher HAMRICK, Debtor(s). |
Robert R. Meredith, Jr., N. Charleston, SC, for Debtor.
This matter comes before the Court on the Objection to Claim of Memorie Beth Cole filed by Bradley Christopher Hamrick ("Debtor" or "Husband") on July 28, 2020. Memorie Beth Cole a/k/a Memorie Beth Hamrick ("Ms. Hamrick" or "Wife") did not file a response to the Objection as required by the Notice of Objection. Nevertheless, the Court conducted a hearing on the Objection to Claim on September 10, 2020. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and this matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, which is made applicable to these proceedings by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052 and 9014(c), the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:1
BACKGROUND
Debtor and Ms. Hamrick were married in 2002 and have two minor children together. For the majority of their marriage, Debtor and Ms. Hamrick lived in North Carolina. In February of 2013, upon Debtor's return from a tour of duty in Afghanistan, Ms. Hamrick notified Debtor that she wanted to end their marriage. After separating for a period of time, Ms. Hamrick and Debtor executed a Separation Agreement and Property Settlement ("Settlement Agreement") in contemplation of divorce. Ms. Hamrick signed the Settlement Agreement on April 1, 2014 in the presence of a notary in Florida, while Debtor signed the Settlement Agreement on April 12, 2014 in the presence of a notary in Tennessee. The Settlement Agreement purports to set forth the parties' complete agreement regarding child support, spousal support and alimony, property division and other marital issues.2 The Settlement Agreement provides that "[j]urisdiction and interpretation of this Agreement shall be in accordance with North Carolina law." The Agreement was prepared by an attorney employed by Debtor for a $500 fee and was based upon the negotiations of the parties. Ms. Hamrick elected not to obtain her own attorney to represent her in connection with negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement or pursuing the divorce and expressly waived her right to representation in the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement was not incorporated into the Judgment of Absolute Divorce entered by the North Carolina Court for Cleveland County on June 10, 2014 nor any other order of any other court.4 Pursuant to North Carolina law, an unincorporated separation agreement is considered to be and is enforceable as a contract. Lasecki v. Lasecki , 257 N.C.App. 24, 809 S.E.2d 296, 302 (2017).
On March 18, 2020, Ms. Hamrick filed a lawsuit against Debtor in the Circuit Court in Okaloosa County, Florida ("Florida State Court"), seeking an award of child support, reimbursement of medical/dental expenses, provision of medical/dental insurance, life insurance to secure child support, attorney's fees, establishment of a parenting plan to determine custody and time sharing of children, amendment of a trust established on behalf of their daughter, rescission of the marital settlement agreement, division of marital property, including Debtor's military retirement, establishment of alimony/spousal support, unjust enrichment, constructive fraud by breach of fiduciary duty, and three separate claims for conversion. On that same date, Ms. Hamrick filed a petition in the Florida State Court seeking domestication of the North Carolina Judgment of Divorce. Prior to that action and despite Ms. Hamrick's allegations that Debtor failed to perform several of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and committed fraud in inducing her to enter the agreement, Ms. Hamrick did not assert any claim in any court against Debtor related to the Settlement Agreement.
On April 14, 2020, Debtor, while a resident of South Carolina, filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in this Court. On May 7, 2020, Ms. Hamrick filed a proof of claim, asserting a priority claim for a domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B), based upon her Complaint filed on March 18, 2020, in an amount to be determined by the Florida State Court. On its face, Ms. Hamrick's proof of claim provides vague and inconsistent information regarding the basis of the claim. For example, Section 7 and 8 of her proof of claim state that the basis of the claim is "Breach of Contract, Spousal Support, Child Support, and Fraud" in an undetermined amount. In the following section, the proof of claim states that it is a secured claim in the amount of $67,444.50, secured by real estate. The claim also does not specify which property owned by Debtor secures the claim. The claim further indicates that the amount claimed includes interest and other charges, but does not attach a statement itemizing interest, fees, expenses, or other charges as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c)(2)(A). To support her priority, secured claim, Ms. Hamrick attached copies of the following documents to the Proof of Claim: the Florida State Court complaint, an unsigned copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Judgment of Divorce, and a letter sent to Debtor by Ms. Hamrick's Florida state court lawyer on October 27, 2019, which notifies Debtor that Ms. Hamrick is asserting that he has materially breached the Settlement Agreement and is pursuing all available remedies under the law.
No evidence of perfection of any security interest in property of Debtor is attached to Ms. Hamrick's Proof of Claim as required under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(d). Ms. Hamrick's claim appears to be specifically based on her assertions in the Florida State Court Complaint.5 At the time of the filing of her Proof of Claim, Ms. Hamrick was being represented in her domestic action by a Florida attorney. Nevertheless, she elected to prepare and file her proof of claim pro se , later advising the Court that she had limited resources. By filing her Proof of Claim, Ms. Hamrick has submitted to personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. See In re Coulter , 305 B.R. 748, 759 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2003) ().
On July 24, 2020, Debtor filed an adversary proceeding in this Court, which addresses each of the allegations of the Florida Complaint and seeks a declaratory judgment that Debtor is current on all monetary and support related obligations under the Settlement Agreement, that many of the allegations of the Complaint should be dismissed or found to be claims that are dischargeable, unsecured and nonpriority debt, and that certain of Ms. Hamrick's actions constitute violations of the automatic stay. The Summons and Complaint were properly served, and Ms. Hamrick filed a pro se answer on August 27, 2020, thereby submitting herself to the jurisdiction of this Court.6 The Court entered a scheduling order on September 28, 2020 setting forth deadlines for discovery and motions.
On July 28, 2020, Debtor filed the Objection to Claim and served Ms. Hamrick with Notice of the Objection to Claim. The Notice required Ms. Hamrick to serve any written response within 30 days of service of the Notice and provided that if no response was filed, no hearing would be held on the Objection to Claim, except at the direction of the judge.7 Although it appears from the Certificate of Service filed on the record that Ms. Hamrick was properly served with Notice of Debtor's objection to her claim at the address provided for notice on her Proof of Claim, Ms. Hamrick did not file a response. Ms. Hamrick's claim is restricted to the Proof of Claim she filed in this case. She made no request to amend her claim prior to the hearing on the Objection to Claim. Even if the Court were to view the Proof of Claim liberally, the Court herein has considered Ms. Hamrick's causes of action as framed in her Florida Complaint.
The Court granted partial relief from stay by Order entered July 29, 2020 ("Interim Stay Relief Order"), which allowed Ms. Hamrick to "proceed in an appropriate state court to seek an order establishing child support and to determine custody and visitation, which are not matters stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)." Based upon the parties' agreement, the Court stated in the Interim Stay Relief Order that the hearings scheduled in Florida State Court on July 29, 2020 on the following matters could occur: Ms. Hamrick's claims for child support, custody and visitation, the Emergency Verified Motion for Child Pick-Up and any necessary administrative determinations related to the determination of child support and custody/visitation, such as the domestication of the Judgment of Absolute Divorce and determination of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act or the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Court further ordered that payment of any child support awarded could only be authorized in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2) or by further order of this Court. In addition, the Court directed that all other matters raised by the Florida Court Complaint were stayed.
On August 26, 2020, the Florida State Court entered an order on Debtor's motion to dismiss Ms. Hamrick's complaint.8 The Florida State Court denied Debtor's motion to dismiss the causes of action seeking child support and establishment of a parenting plan. The remaining claims, including amendment of a trust, rescission of the Settlement Agreement, modification of the military retirement benefits awarded to Ms. Hamrick and seeking spousal support or alimony for Ms. Hamrick, unjust...
To continue reading
Request your trial