Schubiner v. Zolman (In re Schubiner), Case No. 12-47106
| Citation | 590 B.R. 362 |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-47106,Adv. No. 17-4677 |
| Parties | IN RE: Scott R. SCHUBINER, Debtor. Steven P. Schubiner, etc., Plaintiff, v. Shelley Zolman, Defendant. |
| Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Debra Beth Pevos, Howard S. Sher, Jacob & Weingarten, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Michael I. Zousmer, Zousmer Law Group PLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Attorney for Defendant.
The parties in this adversary proceeding ask the Court to decide, among other things, whether a particular obligation in a prenuptial agreement made by the Debtor, Scott R. Schubiner, is a "domestic support obligation" within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 101(14A), and thereby is nondischargeable in the Debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(5).
Scott R. Schubiner ("Scott") and Shelley Zolman ("Shelley") made a prenuptial agreement (referred to in this Opinion as the "Antenuptial Agreement") in 2010, a few days before they were married. Scott later filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, in 2012, and obtained a discharge. A few years later, in 2017, Scott died. A dispute then arose under the Antenuptial Agreement, which led Shelley to file an action in state probate court. In that action, Shelley sought damages of $500,000 for Scott's alleged breach of an obligation relating to life insurance, contained in the Antenuptial Agreement. Shelley's filing of that state court action, in turn, led the personal representative of Scott's probate estate, Steven P. Schubiner (the "Plaintiff"), to file this adversary proceeding against Shelley. Plaintiff claims, among other things, that Shelley's state court action violated the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), because Scott's alleged obligation at issue was discharged in Scott's bankruptcy case.
This adversary proceeding is before the Court on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, regarding the Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Docket # 19), or alternatively, for summary judgment (Docket ## 22, 27, collectively, the "Motions"). The Court held a hearing on the Motions and took them under advisement. This Opinion and the Order to follow will constitute the Court's decision on the Motions.
The Court will consider the Motions under applicable summary judgment standards, rather than under the standard that applies to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, because the Court has considered materials outside the pleadings. These include the affidavits of Shelley and of Plaintiff, and all of the other exhibits filed in support of and in opposition to the Motions.
For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court concludes that it cannot grant summary judgment for either party on the issue of whether the alleged debt owing by Scott to Shelley under the Antenuptial Agreement is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), and therefore was not discharged in Scott's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. As a result, the Court cannot grant summary judgment for either party on the issue of whether Shelley violated the discharge injunction by filing the action in the state probate court, seeking to collect such debt.
The Court also concludes, however, that Shelley does not have any valid claim based on the Antenuptial Agreement, and the Court will grant summary judgment for Plaintiff to that extent. Finally, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will exercise its discretion to deny Plaintiff any monetary or other relief for the alleged violation of the discharge injunction, and will grant summary judgment for Shelley to that extent.
The Court will enter an order granting each party's motion for summary judgment in part. The Court's Order will fully dispose of this adversary proceeding.
The undisputed facts include the following:
A. The Antenuptial Agreement
On February 11, 2010, shortly before their marriage, Scott and Shelley entered into the Antenuptial Agreement.1 The agreement is quoted at length below. In summary, the agreement specifically defined the "Separate Property" of Scott and Shelley, and provided that Scott and Shelley each would retain their "Separate Property" during their marriage, upon any divorce, or upon the death of either of them. The agreement further defined "Marital Property," as property acquired by Scott and Shelley during their marriage that was not part of the "Separate Property" of either of them. The agreement provided that upon a divorce, Scott and Shelley each would receive one-half of the Marital Property. Finally, the agreement provided, with certain conditions, that Scott and Shelley each would name the other as beneficiary under certain term life insurance policies.
Specifically, the Antenuptial Agreement provided, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vining v. Comerica Bank (In re M.T.G.)
-
Wise v. Wise (In re Wise)
...v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. , 839 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1988) ).And as this Court recently discussed in the case of Schubiner v. Zolman (In re Schubiner ), 590 B.R. 362, Adv. No. 17-4677, 2018 WL 4489454 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2018), the United States Supreme Court has held that the Ba......
-
Lim v. Combs (In re Combs)
...judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, which the Court now adopts from its prior opinion in the case of Schubiner v. Zolman (In re Schubiner ), 590 B.R. 362, 376-77 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) :This Court has previously described the standards governing a motion for summary judgment, as follows: F......
-
In re Kalabat
...injunction and the relief available for a violation of that injunction. As this Court stated in the recent case of Schubiner v. Zolman(In re Schubiner) , 590 B.R. 362, 397–99, Adv. No. 17-4677, 2018 WL 4489454, at *26-27 (Bankr. E.D. Mich., September 18, 2018) :This Court discussed the law ......