Miller, In re
Decision Date | 19 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 94-3225,94-3225 |
Parties | , 33 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1044 In re Sharon N. MILLER, Debtor. Sharon N. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald GENTRY, Ph.D. and Micheline Z. Burger, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jan Hamilton, Hamilton, Peterson, Tipton & Keeshan, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff-appellant.
Micheline Z. Burger, Olathe, KS, for defendants-appellees.
Before HENRY, McKAY, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal raises the question of whether guardian ad litem and psychologist fees, incurred in divorce/child custody proceedings and ordered by the state court to be paid in a certain sum by an ex-spouse/parent directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist, are dischargeable by the ex-spouse/parent in bankruptcy. 1 We affirm the judgment of the district court that these fees are nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(5).
Sharon and Stephen Miller were involved in divorce proceedings before the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, and that court appointed a guardian ad litem and psychologist (defendants) in connection with the proceedings. The state court entered a Decree Determining Custody, Support, and Division of Assets providing, in relevant part, that Sharon Miller was to pay $2,000.00 to the guardian ad litem toward her fees, and $1,567.00 to the psychologist toward his bill for services. A Journal Entry of Judgment was entered by the state court reflecting that judgment was granted in favor of the guardian ad litem and psychologist and against Sharon Miller in the amounts indicated above. The state court judgment specifically provided that each of those judgments was in the nature of support on behalf of the parties' minor children and, as such, neither were dischargeable in bankruptcy. Thereafter, Sharon Miller filed a petition in bankruptcy and later filed an adversary proceeding, seeking a determination that her debts to defendants were dischargeable.
Ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment in the adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court found that it was not bound by either the state court's characterization of the debts as in the nature of support on behalf of the children, or that court's ultimate conclusion that the debts were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Reaching the merits of the case, the bankruptcy court found that the debts were not owed to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor as required for exception from discharge by the plain language of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(5), 2 and that, therefore, the debts were dischargeable in Sharon Miller's bankruptcy.
Defendants appealed, and the district court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision. Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 169 B.R. 715, 721 (D.Kan.1994). The district court found that this court's decision in Jones v. Jones (In re Jones), 9 F.3d 878 (10th Cir.1993), handed down after the bankruptcy court decision in this case, controlled and compelled the conclusion that the guardian ad litem and psychologist fees were nondischargeable. Miller, 169 B.R. at 720, 721.
Whether the guardian ad litem and psychologist fees awarded in this case come within the Sec. 523(a)(5) exception to discharge is a question of federal law, which we review de novo. See Jones, 9 F.3d at 880. Some general tenets of bankruptcy law are instructive in deciding this issue. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated, with regard to the Bankruptcy Code, that "[w]here the statutory language is clear, [the courts'] sole function ... is to enforce it according to its terms." Rake v. Wade, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2187, 2191, 124 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993) (quotations omitted) (third alteration in original). Exceptions to discharge are to be narrowly construed, so as to effect the "fresh start" purpose of bankruptcy. Jones, 9 F.3d at 880. The policy underlying Sec. 523(a)(5), however, favors enforcement of familial support obligations over a "fresh start" for the debtor. Sampson v. Sampson (In re Sampson), 997 F.2d 717, 722 (10th Cir.1993). "Further, the objector to discharge has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a debt is not dischargeable." Jones, 9 F.3d at 880.
The bankruptcy court read the plain language of the statute to require that the debt be to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, in order to be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under Sec. 523(a)(5). See also Eisen v. Linn (In re Linn), 38 B.R. 762, 763 (9th Cir. BAP 1984); Holliday v. Kline (In re Kline), 174 B.R. 525, 527-28 (W.D.Mo.1994); Hartley v. Townsend (In re Townsend), 177 B.R. 902, 904-05 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1995); Newmark v. Newmark (In re Newmark), 177 B.R. 286, 289 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1995); Cooper v. Garcia (In re Garcia), 174 B.R. 529, 531 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1994).
We are bound, however, by the precedent established by prior panels of this court; "[w]e cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this court." In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 53, 130 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994). In reversing the bankruptcy court's decision, the district court found that our opinion in Jones constituted controlling precedent and that Jones dictated that the debts in this case were nondischargeable. We must also examine Jones to determine whether it controls the disposition of this case and compels the outcome reached by the district court.
The factual scenario in Jones involved a mother who was ordered by the state court to pay the father's attorney's fees incurred in custody modification proceedings. The mother declared bankruptcy, and this court held that her debt for the father's attorney's fees was nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(5). The analysis focused entirely upon whether the debt was in the nature of support. We held that it would be inappropriate to require a bankruptcy court to determine the purpose of the custody action and that "in all custody actions, the court's ultimate goal is the welfare of the child." Jones, 9 F.3d at 881. Given that premise, we broadly interpreted the term "support" as used in Sec. 523(a)(5) to conclude that "court-ordered attorney's fees arising from post-divorce custody actions are deemed in the nature of support under Sec. 523(a)(5) as being incurred on behalf of the child," and that, therefore, the debt was nondischargeable. Id. at 881-82.
We recognize that Jones does not address the precise issue presented by this case. In fact, it is not readily apparent from Jones whether the state court ordered the mother to pay the attorney's fees directly to the attorney or to the father. We note, however, that the father's attorney is listed in the caption of Jones as a plaintiff-appellee, possibly indicating that the court ordered the mother to pay the fees to the attorney. Cf. O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears v. Perlin (In re Perlin), 30 F.3d 39, 42 (6th Cir.1994) ( ). Jones does not acknowledge the statutory language requiring that a debt be "to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor" in order to be nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(5).
Id. at 881 (quoting Holtz v. Poe (In re Poe), 118 B.R. 809, 812 (Bankr.N.D.Okla.1990)). Indeed, debts to a guardian ad litem, who is specifically charged with representing the child's best interests, and a psychologist hired to evaluate the family in child custody proceedings, can be said to relate just as directly to the support of the child as attorney's fees incurred by the parents in a custody proceeding.
This court is not alone in its interpretation of Sec. 523(a)(5). At least one circuit court has addressed this specific issue. The Second Circuit held in Pauley v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SE Prop. Holdings v. Stewart (In re Stewart)
...(1998); Bellco First Federal Credit Union v. Kaspar (In re Kaspar), 125 F.3d 1358, 1361 (10th Cir. 1997); Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1489 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 916, 116 S.Ct. 305 (1995). Gullickson v. Brown (In re Brown), 108 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir.......
-
Trentadue v. Gay
...(9th Cir. BAP Aug. 17, 2006)aff'd, 239 Fed.Appx. 341 (9th Cir.2007) ; In re Catlow, 663 F.2d 960, 963 (9th Cir.1981) ; In re Miller, 55 F.3d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir.1995) ; In re Jones, 9 F.3d 878, 882 (10th Cir.1993) ; In re Ratcliff, 195 B.R. 466, 468 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1996) ; In re Gionis, 170......
-
In re Papi, Bankruptcy Case No. 09 B 12379 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 5/4/2010), Bankruptcy Case No. 09 B 12379.
...parties, courts have not read the provision literally. In re Rios, 901 F.2d 71, 72 (7th Cir. 1990); see also Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that courts "have specifically rejected a strict plain language interpretation of § 523(a)(5)"). Rather, ......
-
Davis, Matthews & Quigley, P.C. v. Elhag (In re Elhag)
...of guardian ad litem in custody dispute; "the identity of the payee is less important than the nature of the debt"); In re Miller , 55 F.3d 1487, 1488 (10th Cir.1995) (guardian ad litem and psychologist fees of debtor's child); Hudson v. Raggio & Raggio (In re Hudson) , 107 F.3d 355, 357 (5......
-
Attorney Fees in Bankruptcy
...nondebtor spouse had previously discharged her liability on the indebtedness); In re Kline , 65 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 1995); In re Miller , 55 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir. 1995); In re Joseph , 16 F.3d 86 (5th Cir. 1994); Jones v. Jones ( In re Jones ), 9 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 1993). Attorney fees are a......
-
Chapter 25 - § 25.5 • DISCHARGE AND DISCHARGEABILITY
...(not through a nongovernmental collection agency). Most recent cases consistently follow the reasoning of Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir. 1995), and appellate cases in five other circuits. In re Rios, 901 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1990); Falk & Siemer, LLP v. Maddigan (In r......
-
Becker Mckay Wyckoff, They?re Just Letting Anyone in These Days: the Expansion of § 523(a)(5)?s ?domestic Support Obligation? Exception to Discharge
...B.3.4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 523.11[4] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2011); see also Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1489–90 (10th Cir. 1995) (finding fees due to guardian ad litem and child psychologist nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5)).concurrently,20......
-
Bankruptcy & Divorce: a Marriage of Inconvenience
...medical expenses and health insurance. Sommer & McGarry, supra note 6, ¶ 6.05[3], at 6-64 to 6-65. [69] Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1489-90 (10th Cir. 1995). [70] Id. [71] Jones v. Jones (In re Jones), 9 F.3d 878, 881—82 (10th Cir. 1993). The court in Jones found the atto......