11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations to a former spouse from discharge when they are actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Hankins v. Degraffenreid (In re Degraffenreid) · filed 1988-08-05(a)(5)

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), a Chapter 11 debtor is unable to discharge obligations to a former spouse for alimony, maintenance or support owed to such spouse when such payments are “actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support.”

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires a debt to be actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support; its label alone does not make it nondischargeable.

Slingerland v. Slingerland (In Re Slingerland) · filed 1988-07-28(a)(5)(B)

Section 523(a)(5)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B), makes clear that the mere designation of a debt as alimony, maintenance or support will not create a nondis-chargeable debt unless the liability is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related medical coverage and expenses intended as support from discharge, but permits discharge of mortgage payments intended as property division.

Shelton v. Shelton (In Re Shelton) · filed 1988-09-26(a)(5)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court holds that Debtor’s obligation to make mortgage payments to Chemical Mortgage Company is a dischargeable debt, and any arrearage in that regard is hereby subject to the general bankruptcy discharge. Debtor’s obligation to pay various health-related premiums and medical, dental and hospital expenses is not discharged.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts alimony from discharge when the parties intended the payments as support and the former spouse needs them to meet daily expenses.

Holder v. Holder · filed 1988-10-20(a)(5)

In light of the aforestated findings, which are supported by the record, this Court concludes that such court’s finding, that the parties intended the pertinent alimony payments to be used as support for Ms. Holder and that Ms. Holder used the payments for support, and further that without such support she could not meet her daily needs, is not clearly erroneous and, therefore, are accepted by this Court.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts life insurance premium obligations from discharge when they are in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

In Re Pollock · filed 1988-09-21(a)(5)

Under the circumstances, on admittedly scanty evidence, we find that the parties intended that these premium payments be in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. ... As we have been presented with no evidence suggesting that any portion of this insurance obligation be segregated, we find the total amount non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts attorney fees awarded in a paternity action from discharge when the fees function as child support.

Blanchard v. Booch (In Re Booch) · filed 1988-10-03(a)(5)

Therefore, in the instant case, because paternity was established in the abandonment proceeding in the State Court of Fulton County, the only question remaining is whether the attorney fees awarded constitute “support” within the meaning of § 523(a)(5). ... Therefore, little doubt exists that the award of attorney fees in the instant case should be characterized as an item of support.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts attorney fees awarded in a paternity support action from discharge, including fees to establish paternity, but does not authorize an award of fees incurred in the dischargeability action.

Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Barbre (In Re Barbre) · filed 1988-10-24(a)(5)

Accordingly, debtor’s obligation for attorney fees of $10,627.00 awarded in the state court paternity action is nondischargeable in this bankruptcy proceeding. ... This Court agrees with the reasoning of Lathouwers and those courts finding no basis for an award of attorney fees in a dischargeability proceeding and, accordingly, denies plaintiff’s request for attorney fees in the instant action.

Section 523(a)(5) requires the court to determine whether a divorce award is in the nature of support.

Lewis v. Lewis · filed 1988-10-26(a)(5)

The above is in keeping with 11 USC § 523 (a) (5), which requires the court to determine nothing more than whether the award is in the nature of support.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts attorney fees incurred in post-divorce visitation proceedings from discharge as debts in the nature of support.

Dellapa v. Vazquez (In Re Vazquez) · filed 1988-10-27(a)(5)

This court agrees with the bankruptcy court that attorney fees incurred pertaining to the issue of visitation are “in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support” under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts attorney’s fees incurred to enforce child support from discharge when the fees are in the nature of maintenance or support.

Jacobs v. Zimberoff (In Re Zimberoff) · filed 1988-10-31(a)(5)

This Court therefore concludes that the Debtor’s obligation to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00, incurred to secure post-decree enforcement of child support payments are in the nature of maintenance and support and are therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts court-ordered attorney’s fees and costs from discharge when they provide necessary support for a debtor’s child.

Truhlar v. Doe (In Re Doe) · filed 1988-11-18(a)(5)

The judgments for attorney’s fees and costs awarded by the District Court of Denver, Colorado are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) preserves the discharge exception for an alimony obligation when it is reduced to judgment.

Alexander v. Alexander (In Re Alexander) · filed 1988-11-01(a)(5)(B)

Merger into a subsequent judgment does not cause a judgment for alimony to lose its nondischargeable character. The subsequent judgment remains unaffected by a discharge so long as the original decree for alimony remains in full force and effect.

Section 523(a)(5) can make a debtor’s support-related obligation to hold a former spouse harmless for marital debts nondischargeable without making the underlying debts to third parties nondischargeable.

In Re Lord · filed 1988-11-03(a)(5)

In doing so, Plaintiff misconstrues the scope of Section 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. That section does not render nondischargeable a debt to a third party itself, but only the debtor's obligation to hold his or her ex-spouse harmless from the payment of this debt.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts from discharge a debt owed to a former spouse for necessaries provided to support the debtor’s child.

Boyd v. Boyd (In Re Boyd) · filed 1988-11-07(a)(5)

This amount was expended by Robert H. Boyd for the maintenance and support of the child and under the language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a former spouse’s pension payments from discharge when the parties intended the payments as alimony, maintenance, or support.

Corrigan v. Corrigan (In Re Corrigan) · filed 1988-11-16(a)(5)

Furthermore, upon examination of the decree and pursuant to a hearing of further evidence, this Court concludes that the pension retirement obligation was in the nature of alimony, support and maintenance and is therefore nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a former spouse’s support award from discharge even when the award distributes the value of a professional degree.

Zaera v. Raff (In Re Raff) · filed 1988-11-18(a)(5)

Therefore, the award of a percentage of the present value of the medical degree is in the nature of alimony and support and is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a child support debt from discharge when a public support agency obtains a state court judgment to recover support payments.

Ohio Ex Rel. County of Summit Department of Human Services v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1988-12-13(a)(5)(A)

As in In re Walden, 60 B.R. 641, 643 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1986), this court “finds that a literal interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A) nullifies the express goal of Congress in amending § 523 and readopting 42 U.S.C. § 656(b),” ... and further finds that “Congress intended to except from discharge all legitimate debts for alimony or support, not just those that arose in a manner expressly enumerated in the statute.” ... For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that the debt owed by the Debtor to the Bureau of Support is nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts payments intended as support from discharge despite a property settlement label in the parties’ agreement.

Shannon v. Quinn (In Re Quinn) · filed 1988-12-14(a)(5)(B)

The court is clearly convinced that despite the labels and non-modifiability aspect, the parties intended them as support and they are thus non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce decree debts nondischargeable when they were intended as support, were necessary for the family's daily needs, and were not manifestly excessive.

Alford v. Alford (In re Alford) · filed 1988-12-29(a)(5)

In order to render a debt nondischargeable by virtue of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(5), this Court consistently has applied the three-prong test that originally was set forth in In re Calhoun, 715 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir.1983). ... Accordingly, the eight (8) obligations assumed by the Debtor in the divorce decree are determined to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce-related debts nondischargeable when they are actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support, including obligations to pay joint debts and attorney’s fees.

West v. West (In Re West) · filed 1989-01-27(a)(5)

Accordingly, in view of the complete record before the Court, and for the reasons set forth above we must determine that the obligations arising pursuant to the divorce decree, the payment of the parties’ joint indebtedness and attorney’s fees, are in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support and, therefore, nondischargeable under section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires a debt labeled as alimony to be actually in the nature of support to be excepted from discharge.

Winn v. Winn (In Re Winn) · filed 1988-12-29(a)(5)(B)

I find that this award was in fact a property settlement and not alimony, maintenance or support as those terms are employed in § 523(a)(5)(B).

Section 523(a)(5) makes a divorce-related attorney fee award nondischargeable when the spouse proves it is in the nature of alimony or support.

Schmiel v. Judge (In Re Schmiel) · filed 1989-02-08(a)(5)

Since the Plaintiff, by a slight margin, met her burden as to this element, we conclude that the obligation of the Debtor to pay her counsel’s fees and costs in the state-court proceeding is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an agreed obligation to pay a child’s college expenses from discharge when the parties intended it as support and it can reasonably be construed as support.

Pierce v. Pierce (In Re Pierce) · filed 1988-12-30(a)(5)

This court agrees with the cases cited above that the phrase “child support”, as used in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), should not be interpreted to except from discharge only such support as could be imposed by state law. To do so would be to read restrictive language into the statute with no basis in law or policy. A contractually assumed debt for such expenses should be excepted from discharge if the parties intended it as support and if it can reasonably be construed as support.

Section 523(a)(5) does not require a court to assess a former spouse’s present need for support or changed circumstances when deciding whether a support obligation is dischargeable.

Sylvester v. Jane Lee Sylvester Sylvia Marks-Barnett & Associates · filed 1989-01-17(a)(5)

A requirement that the former spouse’s present need for support or changed circumstances be analyzed in determining dischargeability finds no support in either the language or the legislative history of § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce obligations nondischargeable when they are actually support, despite a property settlement label.

Smith v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1989-03-06(a)(5)

This court finds that although denominated as a property settlement, the obligations undertaken by Dr. Smith as part of the Agreement Incident To Divorce are actually in the nature of support and are, therefore, nondischargeable under 11 U.S. C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related debts from discharge to the extent they provide support; interest that is not in the nature of support remains dischargeable.

Sermersheim v. Sermersheim (In Re Sermersheim) · filed 1989-03-06(a)(5)

Thus, while Debtor may not discharge the debts in issue and must arrange payment of the $8,929.16, he is not responsible for the interest accruing on these obligations and may discharge same.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an obligation to a former spouse from discharge when the obligation is actually in the nature of alimony or support.

Orr v. Orr (In Re Orr) · filed 1989-03-10(a)(5)

I find that the debtor’s obligations to his ex-wife are actually in the nature of alimony and support, intended to balance the disparate incomes of the spouses. Therefore, the amounts owed by the debtor to his ex-wife are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce payments nondischargeable when they are actually intended for and provide support, even if the divorce decree includes them in a property division.

Messnick v. Messnick (In Re Messnick) · filed 1989-04-24(a)(5)

All periodic payments were “actually in the' nature of alimony, maintenance or support” and are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce obligation from discharge when the parties intended it to provide support, even if the divorce decree describes it as property division.

Rush v. Rush (In Re Rush) · filed 1989-05-03(a)(5)

The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the parties intended the payments be in the nature of support. We therefore agree with the bankruptcy court that appellant’s obligations are covered by § 523(a)(5) and, therefore, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce decree obligations from discharge when they are actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support, including a payment described as property equity and debts the debtor agreed to assume.

Lariccia v. Lariccia (In Re Lariccia) · filed 1989-05-22(a)(5)

For the foregoing reasons and on the authorities cited, the Court finds that the Debtor’s obligations for the home-improvement loan, the Master Charge obligation under the terms of the Divorce Decree Judgment Entry, and the amount of Eight Thousand, Eighty Dollars ($8,080.00), plus interest of eight percent (8%) per annum effective July 1, 1987 until fully paid by Debtor, resulted from an award of alimony, maintenance or support within the meaning of § 523(a)(5). As such, the amounts owing are nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) determines whether an obligation is support based on its nature at the time of divorce, without considering later changes in the parties’ finances.

Chedrick v. Chedrick (In Re Chedrick) · filed 1989-04-11(a)(5)

That is, bankruptcy courts should not inquire into the current relative financial conditions of the parties but should only determine the nature of the obligation at the time of the divorce.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes an attorney’s fee award in a divorce decree nondischargeable when the award was intended as support.

Fornachon v. Fornachon (In Re Fornachon) · filed 1989-04-26(a)(5)(B)

Accordingly, upon consideration of the record, briefs, and Judge Campbell’s deposition, I find the award of $2,000.00 as attorney fees was intended as support for Tina Fornachon and not dischargeable as a debt, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B).

Section 523(a)(5) makes mortgage payments nondischargeable when they are in the nature of alimony or support.

Schreiber v. Schreiber (In Re Schreiber) · filed 1989-05-08(a)(5)

We thus reach the conclusion that defendant’s obligation regarding the second mortgage, both as to amounts which are in arrears as well as future obligations, are dischargeable, while his obligations with respect to the first mortgage, both as to arrearage and ongoing payments until Tiffany reaches the age of 18, are in the nature of alimony and therefore nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes past due child support nondischargeable when it would have provided necessary support when due, even if the children are now emancipated.

Patterson v. Matyac (In Re Matyac) · filed 1989-05-15(a)(5)

Applying such approach to this matter, it is obvious the past child support which the debtor failed to pay would have provided necessary support at the time the obligation was due. ... Based upon the foregoing, the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for past due child support should be, and the same is hereby, declared to be a support obligation which is not dischargeable in the defendant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except an alimony-in-gross property settlement from discharge when the obligation is not support.

In Re Brothers · filed 1989-05-17(a)(5)

The obligation here owed by the debtor to Smith, therefore, does not present an issue of whether a conflict exists between the provisions of § 523(a)(5) and the provisions of § 522(f)(1), for this obligation is clearly subject to the debtor’s discharge in this chapter 7 bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts debts that function as alimony, maintenance, or support from discharge; debts intended as a property settlement are dischargeable.

Hoffman v. Hoffman (In Re Hoffman) · filed 1989-05-19(a)(5)(B)

I find that the function of the Decree and Stipulation was intended to serve as a settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, Bruce William Hoffman, is discharged of his debts, except for the $230.00 per month awarded as and for child support.

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce obligations that are in the nature of support nondischargeable, including a home transfer, fees, and a hold harmless obligation when they serve that purpose.

Burch v. Burch (In Re Burch) · filed 1989-05-25(a)(5)

Those items of alimony and support in paragraph 10 of Debtor’s complaint, the transfer of the marital home to the ex-wife, Carol A. Burch, her attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and the hold harmless requirement regarding the solar hot water heater litigation are hereby deemed to be nondischargeable as set forth in this opinion.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support from discharge, but permits discharge of property settlements.

In Re Earnest James Pederson, Debtor. Bonnie Jean Stedman v. Earnest James Pederson · filed 1989-05-30(a)(5)

Because the award was not in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, it would have been dischargeable in bankruptcy under section 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts divorce obligations from discharge when they are actually support or maintenance, including property, debt, and attorney’s fee awards intended to provide support.

Haas v. Haas (In Re Haas) · filed 1989-06-07(a)(5)(B)

The Court finds that each of these debts is actually in the nature of support and maintenance rather than a division of property, and as such is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an obligation from discharge when it is actually in the nature of support, regardless of its label in a property agreement.

Jackson v. Jackson (In Re Jackson) · filed 1989-06-30(a)(5)

This Court, upon the foregoing, finds that the evidence clearly establishes that the $600.00 per month was intended to be a support obligation as contemplated by § 523(a)(5) and is therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a debtor’s obligation to pay a former spouse’s mortgage nondischargeable when the payment provides shelter and is intended as spousal maintenance.

Hill v. Hale (In Re Hill) · filed 1989-06-05(a)(5)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Agreement to insure that the ex-wife be provided with this necessity of life, i.e. shelter, is in the nature of spousal maintenance and nondischargeable as such under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes mortgage payments nondischargeable when they provide necessary shelter for the debtor’s children.

Gianakas v. Gianakas (In Re Gianakas) · filed 1989-06-09(a)(5)

And now, to-wit, this 9th day of June, 1989, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Debtor’s obligation to make payments specified in Paragraph 3A of the December 24, 1982 Agreement between Paul Chris Gianakas and Karen Gianakas is a support obligation which is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce debts from discharge when they are actually for alimony, maintenance, or support, but not when they divide marital property.

McHenry v. McHenry (In Re McHenry) · filed 1989-06-09(a)(5)

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the $4,000.00 debt as set out in the Dissolution Decree, as modified, is not nondischargeable as support under § 523(a)(5) and is generally dischargeable in the Debtor’s bankruptcy pursuant to § 727.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts support obligations from discharge, while obligations intended to divide marital property are dischargeable.

Schmerzler v. Goodnight (In Re Goodnight) · filed 1989-07-06(a)(5)

These concessions by plaintiff Schmerz-ler clearly indicate that Goodnight’s monthly payment obligations were intended as part of a division of marital property. As a result, the obligations are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) places the ultimate burden on the creditor to prove that a divorce obligation was intended as support.

Davidson v. Davidson (In Re Davidson) · filed 1989-08-28(a)(5)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to the $6,149 to show that such payment or part thereof was in the nature of support.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations from discharge when the parties intended them to provide necessary support and they had that effect.

Angel v. Angel (In Re Angel) · filed 1989-09-13(a)(5)

Clearly, under § 523(a)(5) and the Sixth Circuit's decisions in Calhoun and Singer, the parties had the intent, and the obligations had the effect, of providing necessary support and, thus, are nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts support obligations from discharge when they arise in connection with a separation agreement, including a revised agreement.

Hoffman v. Schweig (In Re Schweig) · filed 1989-09-15(a)(5)

Under either interpretation, the debts under the 1977 Agreement were for support and maintenance made “in connection with” a separation agreement. That is all § 523(a)(5) requires in order for an agreement for support and maintenance to be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce settlement obligation from discharge when the spouses mutually intended it as support and it can legitimately be characterized as support.

Clark v. Clark (In Re Clark) · filed 1989-09-22(a)(5)

In dischargeability disputes under § 523(a)(5), where the obligations at issue are contained in a voluntarily executed settlement agreement between spouses, a determination that those obligations are actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support requires a determination that (1) the parties had a mutual intent to have the obligations considered as such support at the time the agreement was made with that intent, absent a showing of ambiguity, mutual mistake, or fraud, determined from the plain language of the agreement, and (2) the obligation at issue can legitimately be characterized as being in the nature of support.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations in the nature of support from discharge, including attorney fees tied to child support, but does not except debts imposed to divide marital property.

Boggess v. Boggess (In Re Boggess) · filed 1989-09-26(a)(5)

This Court finds, therefore, that defendant’s obligation to hold plaintiff harmless in the payment of marital debts and his obligation to pay plaintiff $3,500 do not constitute awards in the nature of support so as to be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5). ... Based on the statutory standards for awarding attorney fees and the relation of the fees to the child support award, the Court finds that the $1,000 attorney fee award to plaintiff is a debt in the nature of support and thus nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) does not make a divorce settlement payment nondischargeable merely because the parties intended it to survive bankruptcy; the obligation must be in the nature of support.

Reichuber v. Reichuber (In Re Reichuber) · filed 1989-08-10(a)(5)

Appellant relies heavily on this conversion term as indicating the parties’ intent that the obligation would not be extinguished in any bankruptcy action. The bankruptcy court rightly distinguished that intent from one to provide support, and this court agrees that efforts to have a property settlement obligation survive bankruptcy should not be automatically equated with an intent to create an obligation in the nature of support or maintenance.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts alimony, maintenance, and support debts from discharge, but does not cover a property settlement.

In re Ray · filed 1989-08-28(a)(5)

The Judgment Entry clearly evidences that the debt owing to Mrs. Ray is not alimony, maintenance or support, but rather, a property settlement. Thus, her claim against Debtor is not protected by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5) and is discharge-able.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce debt from discharge only if it is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support; a property settlement debt is dischargeable.

Bangert v. McCauley (In Re McCauley) · filed 1989-09-20(a)(5)

Among those exceptions is 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), which precludes discharge of debts to a spouse or child for alimony, maintenance or support if that debt is actually “in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support.” ... Its conclusion that the $80,000 obligation was not in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support was abundantly supported by the record, particularly by the terms of the final decree.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations from discharge when they are in the nature of support rather than a property settlement.

Kodel v. Kodel (In Re Kodel) · filed 1989-09-25(a)(5)

This Court must simply determine whether the obligations in question were in the nature of support as opposed to being in the nature of a property settlement.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations that function as alimony, maintenance, or support from Chapter 7 discharge.

Portaro v. Portaro (In Re Portaro) · filed 1989-10-18(a)(5)

Under this provision, obligations which are imposed by a divorce decree, and which are in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, are not dischargeable in a proceeding under Chapter 7.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a paternity settlement debt from discharge when it is owed for the debtor’s child and is in the nature of child support.

Leaman v. Wilson (In Re Wilson) · filed 1989-11-30(a)(5)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the obligation from the defendant to the plaintiff is a debt to a child of the defendant, in the nature of child support, and incurred in connection with an order of a court of record. Accordingly, that obligation is nondischargeable under the provisions of § 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts spousal support and maintenance from discharge, but a debt arising from a division of marital property is dischargeable.

Elkhatib v. Elkhatib (In Re Elkhatib) · filed 1989-12-16(a)(5)

It is clear to this Court that the $64,500 payment obligation was part of a property division, and was not intended to be, and is not in the nature of, maintenance or support. Therefore, Walid’s motion for summary judgment on Count I is granted and the debt is held to be dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) can make a divorce decree’s hold-harmless obligation nondischargeable when paying the debt provides necessary support to a former spouse.

Keeran v. Keeran (In Re Keeran) · filed 1990-02-26(a)(5)

The household appliances are necessary goods. Plaintiff’s payment on this obligation would have had the effect of providing support to defendant. Furthermore, because defendant obligated herself on this debt, the court finds that the $700 obligation to Home Savings and Loan Association is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a debt under a divorce agreement nondischargeable when it is actually in the nature of support, as determined from the parties’ intent, financial circumstances, and the obligation’s function.

Gianakas v. Gianakas (In Re Gianakas) · filed 1990-03-22(a)(5)

These findings compel a conclusion that the obligation in question is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and is, therefore, not subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 523(a)(5) does not bar discharge of a divorce obligation that is not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support; when the parties’ intent is clear from the settlement agreement, no further inquiry is necessary.

Clark v. Clark (In Re Clark) · filed 1990-04-20(a)(5)

Although I do not conclude that In re Harrell mandates that bankruptcy courts never go beyond the face of the settlement agreement in determining dischargeability of obligations under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), I do hold that where the intent of the parties is clear and unambiguous from the face of the settlement agreement, as in this case, no further investigation is necessary to constitute a “simple inquiry”. ... Accordingly, I AFFIRM the bankruptcy court’s determination that the obligation at issue on this cross-appeal is not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support and, therefore, is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) keeps a support-related obligation to hold a former spouse harmless nondischargeable even when refinancing releases the debtor from the underlying loan.

Robinson v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 1990-04-24(a)(5)

In light of these cases, the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that Mr. Robinson’s hold-harmless obligation to his ex-wife was eliminated by release of the underlying debt upon refinancing.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations that are actually in the nature of support from discharge, while property settlement debts remain dischargeable.

MacKey v. Kaufman (In Re Kaufman) · filed 1990-06-08(a)(5)

In consideration of the above factors it is clear to this Court that the payments provided for in paragraph Eighth are non-dischargeable as being in the nature of alimony, maintenance and support. ... The balance of the monies claimed as due to the Plaintiff is in the nature of a property settlement and is therefore dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an alimony claim from discharge regardless of its amount.

Wines v. Wines (In Re Wines) · filed 1990-05-22(a)(5)

An alimony claim, regardless of the amount, is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) does not apply when a divorce decree creates no obligation for the debtor to pay the former spouse.

Stolp v. Stolp (In Re Stolp) · filed 1990-05-23(a)(5)

Without an obligation for one party to a divorce to pay another party to a divorce a sum of money pursuant to the divorce decree, any further examination of the divorce decree is beyond the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations in the nature of support from discharge, but does not except payments for property.

In Re MacYs · filed 1990-06-22(a)(5)

This court finds that Ms. Macys has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that either component of this award consisting of $26,200.00 for the debtor's pension and profit sharing plan and $86,070.00 for other property is in the nature of alimony, separate maintenance or support. Rather, based upon the divorce decree, I find that the total award represents a judgment against the debtor for the payment of property. ... I find the judgment award for a portion of Ms. Macys' attorney's fees in the amount of $5,120.85 to be in the nature of support, and this award will be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts assumed divorce debts from discharge when they provide necessary support and are reasonable in amount.

Szuch v. Szuch (In Re Szuch) · filed 1990-06-25(a)(5)

Reviewing the traditional state law determinants this Court finds the requisite intent existed to establish an obligation in the nature of alimony, maintenance, and support under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). It is further found that such assumption has the effect of providing the necessary support to ensure the daily needs of Vera Szuch are satisfied. Finally, the amount of the assumption is not so excessive as to render it unreasonable under traditional concepts of support, especially when the loan proceeds apparently went to finance the debtor’s business. ... Accordingly, the obligations to Bank One/SBA and the I.R.S. assumed by Ronald Szuch are nondischargeable support obligations.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce obligations in the nature of support from discharge; a property settlement is dischargeable, even when both are part of the same award.

Love v. Love · filed 1990-06-22(a)(5)

Further, although the bankruptcy court, in this court’s view, could reasonably have found the entire amount to have been non-dischargeable as support, this court cannot say that the bankruptcy court’s perception of the evidence and its ultimate finding that one-half of the award should be characterized as dischargeable property settlement is unreasonable or clearly erroneous in light of this record.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts child support debts from discharge.

Tidwell v. Tegtmeyer (In Re Tidwell) · filed 1990-08-06(a)(5)

The $8,000.00 owed by the debtor to the creditor as child support is a nondis-chargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes mortgage and medical obligations nondischargeable when they are intended to provide support, even if mortgage payments go directly to the lender.

Rogers v. Kiley (In re Rogers) · filed 1990-08-07(a)(5)

Reviewing all of the circumstances of the parties at the time they entered the agreement, we find that the Separation Agreement and the amendment were intended by both parties to provide necessities of life for the both the defendant and her children and that the payment of both the mortgage and the medical expenses by the husband is a critical factor in the wife’s ability to maintain a home for both herself and the children. Consequently, these debts are nondischargeable under the terms of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a divorce-related mortgage obligation from discharge when its assumption was not intended as support.

Cornett v. Cornett (In re Cornett) · filed 1990-09-11(a)(5)

Having satisfied the first tier, that the parties did not intend that the assumption of the mortgage be support for the Plaintiff, this Court’s inquiry ends and the debt is deemed dischargeable under Calhoun.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except an equal division of marital debts from discharge when the division was not intended to provide support.

Rooker v. Rooker (In Re Rooker) · filed 1990-07-05(a)(5)

It is apparent, therefore, that the debts in question were simply divided equally by the Master without any suggestion that the division was intended to provide support. Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that such debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce obligation from discharge when it functions as alimony or support, even if labeled as property division.

Buccino v. Buccino · filed 1990-08-23(a)(5)

Conversely, if a specific obligation in connection with a divorce is labelled property division or “equitable distribution”, such designation will not preclude a finding that the debt is, in fact, in the nature of alimony or support and, consequently, not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a former spouse’s attorney-fee debt from discharge when the fees were generated primarily by maintenance or support issues.

Will v. Miller & Saxton, P.C. (In Re Will) · filed 1990-07-12(a)(5)

Thus, the court was correct in concluding that Will’s agreement to pay attorney fees should be treated as a maintenance or support obligation, since the fees were generated primarily in connection with these issues.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a debt arising from a qualifying divorce agreement nondischargeable when its purpose is to provide support, regardless of state alimony law.

In the Matter of Thomas E. BIGGS, Debtor. Thomas E. BIGGS, Appellant, v. Elizabeth BIGGS, Appellee · filed 1990-08-01(a)(5)

So long as an obligation arises out of an agreement or court order specified in the statute and the purpose of the obligation is to provide alimony, maintenance, or support, the obligation is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an obligation to a former spouse from discharge only if it is actually in the nature of alimony, support, or maintenance; the party challenging discharge bears the burden of proving that character.

Cassata v. Cassata (In Re Cassata) · filed 1990-08-02(a)(5)

Given the ambiguity surrounding the Settlement Agreement, and its apparent substantive function of repaying loans made by plaintiff to defendant, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not proven that the $210 weekly payment is in the nature of alimony, support, or maintenance entitling it to exception from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes pension payments and life insurance obligations nondischargeable when they are intended to support a former spouse.

Mohn v. Mohn (In Re Mohn) · filed 1990-08-28(a)(5)(B)

After careful consideration of the testimony at the hearing on remand and for the reasons stated above, we now find that Mr. Mohn’s obligation to pay Mrs. Mohn $1000 per month for 209 months from his military pension proceeds and his obligation to maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy on his life with Mrs. Mohn as the beneficiary are nondischargeable debts under section 523(a)(5)(B) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(5) makes awarded attorney’s fees for enforcing a child support obligation nondischargeable as support.

David M. Carr, P.A. v. Aguero (In Re Aguero) · filed 1990-08-16(a)(5)

Although this Court looks beyond labels placed on obligations by the state court, In re Burch, 100 B.R. 585, 587 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989), this Court is satisfied that the legal fees actually awarded by the Circuit Court were, in fact, rendered in connection with the enforcement of the Debtor’s obligation to pay child support, and thus the original award of $4,862.50 is a nondis-chargeable obligation.

Section 523(a)(5) treats attorney fees awarded in child custody litigation as support obligations, absent a clear indication of special circumstances to the contrary.

Holtz v. Poe (In Re Poe) · filed 1990-09-06(a)(5)

Since determination of child custody is essential to the child’s proper “support,” attorney fees incurred and awarded in child custody litigation should likewise be considered as obligations for “support,” at least in the absence of clear indication of special circumstances to the contrary. There being no such indications in this matter, the attorney fee of $1,000.00 herein should be treated as “support” and as excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes unpaid child support and divorce-related counsel fees nondischargeable when they are in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Katz v. Katz (In Re Katz) · filed 1990-09-14(a)(5)

The $27,439.00 debt owed by the debtor to the plaintiff is expressly attributable to the unpaid child support and counsel fees, together with counsel’s disbursements which the debtor has been directed to pay to his ex-wife in accordance with the state court divorce judgment. This obligation is clearly nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes pregnancy and confinement expenses and related paternity-action court costs nondischargeable when they are part of a child-support obligation incurred under a paternity judgment.

In the Matter of Wade S. Seibert and Deanne M. Seibert, Debtors-Appellees, Appeal of Green County, State of Wisconsin · filed 1990-09-20(a)(5)

Because we find that Wade’s obligation to pay the pregnancy and confinement expenses are in the nature of support to the child and were incurred in connection with a paternity judgment, we hold that the debt is nondischargeable. ... Accordingly, we hold that the $65.78 in court costs are nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) determines whether a divorce obligation is support based on its nature when the obligation was undertaken.

In Re Paul Chris Gianakas, Debtor. Karen Gianakas v. Gianakas · filed 1990-10-19(a)(5)

We agree with the majority view, and hold that the inquiry of the bankruptcy court should be limited to the nature of the obligation at the time it was undertaken.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a property settlement nondischargeable to the extent necessary to secure support when both spouses intended it to serve that function.

Brody v. Brody (In Re Brody) · filed 1990-11-02(a)(5)

However, such property settlement is nondischargeable only to the extent actually necessary to service this function.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires courts to examine the substance of a divorce obligation and the parties’ intent to decide whether it is support, regardless of its label.

Davidson v. Davidson (In Re Davidson) · filed 1990-12-11(a)(5)(B)

In determining whether the payments were in the nature of support, the Court cannot rely upon the way in which the payments were characterized in the Agreement; rather, the Court must examine the substance of the Agreement and the parties’ intent.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a mortgage obligation nondischargeable when the parties intended it as child support.

Wheeler v. Wheeler (In Re Wheeler) · filed 1991-01-02(a)(5)

This provision would have been meaningless unless the husband also intended to pay the “open-end mortgage” (a personal business debt of the debtor), as part of this support obligation. ... Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s claim listed on Schedule A-3 is determined to be nondischargeable, pursuant to § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a divorce-related attorney-fee obligation from discharge when the award is part of a property division rather than support.

Zick v. Zick (In Re Zick) · filed 1990-11-28(a)(5)

The award of fees to the wife’s attorney is part of the property division and is not excepted from the discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce obligation in the nature of support from discharge; refinancing the underlying debt does not extinguish that obligation.

In Re Edward Earl Robinson, Debtor. Charlotte M. Robinson v. Robinson · filed 1990-11-28(a)(5)

We agree with the district court that the bankruptcy judge did decide that the obligation was in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. ... After reviewing the record, we agree. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision that Edward’s obligation was not extinguished by refinancing and the payments he was ordered to pay to Finance America he now must make to Charlotte.

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce obligations that are in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support nondischargeable.

Semrow v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 1990-12-06(a)(5)

THEREFORE, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5), this court holds that the claim in issue is in the nature of “alimony, maintenance, or support” and is therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce-related attorney fee award from discharge when the award functions as support, even if payment is directed to the attorney.

Lindh v. Brenegan (In Re Brenegan) · filed 1990-12-06(a)(5)

It is well-established that a term in a divorce decree requiring payment of an attorney’s fee directly to the attorney is not an assignment as contemplated by the statutory exception of § 523(a)(5). ... Thus, viewing the circumstances as a whole, the facts indicate that the award of the Family Court was in the nature of support and is therefore nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney’s fees incurred to obtain child or spousal support nondischargeable.

Duncan v. Duncan (In re Duncan) · filed 1991-01-02(a)(5)

In the event said attorney’s fees were incurred for the acquisition of alimony, maintenance or support, either for the spouse or children, then said attorney’s fees so incurred should take on the character of said obligation and be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) permits discharge of an obligation labeled spousal support if it is not actually support.

Jordan v. Jordan · filed 1990-12-18(a)(5)(B)

It also provides, however, that something labelled spousal support is discharged if the obligation is in fact not one for spousal support. Appellant husband offered evidence that what was labelled support was in fact a property settlement. The trial court refused to hear the evidence on the ground that it was a collateral attack on a California judgment. Assuming that such a characterization is apt, the attack is nonetheless permitted, indeed required, by federal law.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a lump sum divorce property award from discharge when the award is not in the nature of alimony, support, or maintenance.

Bulman v. Bulman (In Re Bulman) · filed 1990-12-18(a)(5)

Accordingly, this court holds that the award of $182,-125.00 in paragraph 10 of the final decree is not nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts alimony, maintenance, and support obligations from discharge, but does not except payments intended as a division of property.

Kessler v. Kessler (In Re Kessler) · filed 1990-12-19(a)(5)

We find that the language of the Agreement establishes that the parties intended the car payments to be in the nature of a property division and they cannot be considered alimony, maintenance or support for either the wife or her minor children.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires a debt to be in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support to be excepted from discharge; the state court’s label does not control.

Schurman v. Schurman (In Re Schurman) · filed 1991-01-14(a)(5)(B)

Likewise, whatever label may be placed on the debt by the state court is not controlling because 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B) requires that the debt actually be in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. ... In view thereof this Court finds that the awards to plaintiff were not in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, and therefore concludes that all such items are DISCHARGEABLE in debtor’s Chapter 7.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a divorce award from discharge when the award is a property settlement rather than support, even if the state court labels it spousal maintenance.

Hilsen v. Hilsen (In Re Hilsen) · filed 1991-01-17(a)(5)

In conclusion, all of the foregoing factors alone would not be enough to illustrate that the “temporary spousal maintenance” provision was really a property settlement, but when all of the factors, retroactive payments, short term obligation, payment not referenced to remarriage or death, payments made to third parties and a relatively large alimony and child support award, are considered together, they lead to only one conclusion: that the award is a property settlement and, therefore, dischargeable under the Code.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes an assumed debt nondischargeable when the parties intended it to provide support and it meets the former spouse’s or children’s daily needs.

Altchek v. Altchek (In Re Altchek) · filed 1991-03-04(a)(5)(B)

The obligation of the debtor meets both prongs of the Calhoun test in that there was an intent by the parties to create an obligation to provide support through the assumption of the Barclays obligation and the assumption of the obligation has the effect of providing the support necessary to ensure that the daily needs of the former spouse and children for housing are met. As a result, the obligation to pay the $228,000 on the Barclays Home Equity Loan is in the nature of maintenance and support and is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations in the nature of support or maintenance from discharge; the dissolution decree's characterization does not control whether an obligation qualifies.

Montiel v. Shestko-Montiel (In Re Shestko-Montiel) · filed 1991-01-31(a)(5)

This court is aware that a dissolution decree may award no maintenance or support in contemplation of a substantial property distribution, and that the characterization in the dissolution decree does not control the inquiry.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an obligation in a separation agreement from discharge if the parties intended it as alimony, maintenance, or support rather than a property settlement.

Long v. Long · filed 1991-03-05(a)(5)

If the parties intended that the obligation contained in the Agreement was to be in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support rather than a property settlement, then the defendant’s obligation under the Agreement is a non-dischargeable debt pursuant to § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes fees owed to a child’s appointed lawyer in a custody proceeding nondischargeable when they are in the nature of child support.

Hennenhoefer v. Peters (In Re Peters) · filed 1991-02-28(a)(5)(B)

The debtor’s obligation to plaintiff in the sum of $34,269.24 constitutes a nondis-chargeable obligation within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) for maintenance or support of the debtor’s minor son in connection with an order of a court of record entered in a custody proceeding involving the debtor’s minor son.

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney’s fees incurred in child custody and visitation litigation nondischargeable when they are in the nature of child support.

Adams v. Zentz · filed 1991-03-15(a)(5)

I am persuaded by the numerous cases setting forth what is considered to be the majority rule on this issue — that is, a debt for attorney’s fees incurred in litigating child custody and visitation issues is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related attorney fees from discharge when they are intended to provide necessary support and are not manifestly unreasonable.

Rudicil v. Rudicil (In Re Rudicil) · filed 1991-03-26(a)(5)

Based upon the testimony adduced, the underlying divorce documentation, and the relative earning power of the respective parties at the time of the divorce, it is hereby determined that the $7,500.00 award of attorney fees was intended to have been a payment in the form of additional alimony and was in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. The award was necessary to provide support and was not manifestly unreasonable to offend traditional concepts of support.

Section 523(a)(5) can make a loan assumed under a divorce decree nondischargeable as a support obligation, including an obligation created by a hold harmless clause.

In Re Susan M. Wallace, Debtor. Susan M. Wallace v. Wallace · filed 1991-04-09(a)(5)

Upon review, we affirm the district court's order. "Hold harmless" clauses can create nondischargeable obligations. See In re Calhoun, 715 F.2d 1103, 1106-07 (6th Cir.1983). Calhoun also holds that the bankruptcy court's determination of whether a loan assumption constitutes a nondischargeable support obligation is a factual finding only reviewable in the court of appeals under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a debtor’s obligation to hold a former spouse harmless on debts from discharge when the obligation is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Ferebee v. Ferebee (In Re Ferebee) · filed 1991-03-28(a)(5)

I find that the hold harmless obligations in the post-nuptial agreements are actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, and support. Consequently, I will enter a separate order declaring the debtor’s obligation to hold the plaintiff harmless on the VISA charge card debt, the Signet Bank loan, and the Saab lease nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts an obligation in a voluntary divorce agreement from discharge as support only when both parties intended it to provide alimony, maintenance, or support.

Purnell v. Welborn (In Re Welborn) · filed 1991-04-26(a)(5)(B)

Accordingly, we find that the debtor’s obligation embodied in the December 3, 1987 divorce decree to hold the plaintiff harmless for the IRS tax penalty is a dis-chargeable obligation that is not in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts a divorce debt from discharge when it is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support, regardless of the award’s label.

Cunningham v. Brown (In Re Cunningham) · filed 1991-04-03(a)(5)(B)

Debtor is quite correct in suggesting that no matter what a monetary award is called in the state court decree, it only escapes dischargeability if “such liability is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support”. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(B). ... The Court simply cannot find evidence that these two provisions were anything other than what they were labeled. The Court, therefore, concludes that the debt to DDB is NOT DISCHARGEABLE under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts obligations that are genuinely maintenance or support from discharge; property settlements and assumed marital debts that do not serve a support function are dischargeable.

Dimmitt v. Dimmitt (In Re Dimmitt) · filed 1991-04-03(a)(5)

The following obligations in the Separation Agreement were not in the nature of support or maintenance, but were part of the division of marital property and debts and are dischargeable in this bankruptcy proceeding: Debtor’s assumption of marital debts, as set forth in Schedule C of the Agreement; and the $210,000 payment identified as maintenance in gross in paragraph 8.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce debts in the nature of support from discharge; property or debt settlements are dischargeable.

Mitchell v. Mitchell-Long (In Re Mitchell) · filed 1991-04-05(a)(5)

To the extent that the divorce obligations are in the nature of support, they are nondis-chargeable. To the extent they are simply property/debt settlement, they are dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related counsel fees from discharge when they are in the nature of alimony or support.

Taylor v. Flocke, No. Fa89 0262260 S (May 7, 1991) · filed 1991-05-07(a)(5)

By virtue of the references, it is clear that CT Page 4253 the award of counsel fees in this case to Owens Schine is in the nature of alimony and, therefore, nondischargeable in bankruptcy. ... As the award to the defendant in this case is in the nature of alimony, the award to Attorney Rosenberg in this case is in the nature of support and, therefore, nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce attorney fee obligation from discharge when it is in the nature of support rather than a property settlement.

Balvich v. Balvich (In Re Balvich) · filed 1991-05-22(a)(5)

This testimony combined with all the above factors causes this court to find that the attorney fee obligation in the Balvich’s agreement of settlement was not intended as a property settlement but is in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, pursuant to § 523(a)(5), and is, therefore, non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a support debt from discharge only when the debtor’s obligation comes from a separation agreement, divorce decree, or court order.

Kinnally v. Fonnemann (In Re Fonnemann) · filed 1991-06-04(a)(5)

Section 523(a)(5) is limited to instances where the debtor has an obligation from a separation agreement, divorce decree, or court order to pay alimony or child support.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a mortgage obligation from discharge as support when the divorce agreement treats it as part of a property settlement and expressly waives spousal support.

Fuda v. D'Atria (In Re D'Atria) · filed 1991-06-10(a)(5)

Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to sustain her burden of establishing that the debtor’s $80,000.00 second mortgage obligation is nondischargeable as actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a support debt from discharge when the debt is owed to the debtor’s sister and assigned to the state rather than owed to the debtor’s spouse, former spouse, or child.

Lutz v. Oligschlaeger (In Re Lutz) · filed 1991-06-11(a)(5)

Be that as it may, it would seem that element number 1 could not be satisfied since the debt ran to debtor’s sister and was assigned by her to the State of Missouri. Ergo, it appears that two of the essential elements are missing. ... The debt to Mary Ann Oligschlaeger and the State of Missouri, Division of Child Support Enforcement, is determined to be DISCHARGED.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related attorney fees and costs from discharge when they are in the nature of support, even if the creditor later releases the former spouse from liability.

Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen v. El-Amin (In Re El-Amin) · filed 1991-06-25(a)(5)

Because Adams was liable to HFWCA at the time of the circuit court’s final decree, this court finds the award for $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $7,274.00 in court costs is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5). HFWCA’s later release of Adams from liability had no effect on debt- or’s continued liability for the judgment.

Section 523(a)(5) makes divorce-related attorney’s fees nondischargeable when they are in the nature of support.

Leslie v. Hart (In Re Hart) · filed 1991-07-03(a)(5)

Accordingly, the terms of the Property Settlement Agreement, which shall be given issue preclusive effect in this Adversary Proceeding, clearly indicate that the attorney’s fees awarded to the Plaintiff are in the nature of support pursuant to § 523(a)(5) as determined by the federal standards discussed above.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires courts to determine whether a divorce obligation labeled maintenance is actually support; they may consider the recipient’s needs at the time of divorce.

In Re Leonard (Nmn) Love, Sr., Debtor. Bessie Mae Love v. Leonard (Nmn) Love, Sr. · filed 1991-07-01(a)(5)(B)

In the instant case, however, the bankruptcy court did not evaluate appellant's need at the time of the bankruptcy proceeding, but rather considered the evidence of appellant's need for support at the time of the parties' divorce, in order to determine the intent of the state court in ordering the monthly maintenance payments. The bankruptcy court's inquiry was appropriate.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts alimony, maintenance, and support debts from discharge; an obligation arising from a division of property is dischargeable.

Kreitzer v. Gamble (In Re Kreitzer) · filed 1991-07-17(a)(5)(B)

The debt is a division of property and not in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. The plaintiff/debtor is entitled to summary judgment that such obligation is discharge-able.

Section 523(a)(5) makes an obligation to pay marital credit card debt nondischargeable when it functions as support for a dependent former spouse.

Borzillo v. Borzillo (In Re Borzillo) · filed 1991-08-01(a)(5)

Therefore, we conclude that the Debtor’s obligation to pay all of the credit card debts accumulated by the parties during their marriage is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5), as well as the other liabilities in issue.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts from discharge a parent's obligation to reimburse a government agency for a child's care when the debt is in the nature of child support.

Canganelli v. Lake County Indiana Department of Public Welfare (In Re Canganelli) · filed 1991-08-03(a)(5)

In determining whether the Debt- or’s obligation to the Department is nondischargeable, the Court must answer two inquiries in the affirmative: first, did Congress intend to include Juvenile Court orders within the purview of § 523(a)(5) as amended, and secondly, does the Juvenile Court order requiring the debtor to pay $45,081.91 to the Department constitute support within the meaning of § 523(a)(5)? The court finds in the affirmative as to both of these inquiries, and concludes that such debt is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney fees incurred to secure a child's return under a custody order nondischargeable when the fees are in the nature of child support.

Hayden v. Farrell (In Re Hayden) · filed 1991-08-08(a)(5)

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the attorney fee award is in the nature of child support within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(5), and is therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts mortgage payments promised in a divorce settlement from discharge when the obligation was intended as support or maintenance when incurred.

Yauger v. Yauger (In Re Yauger) · filed 1991-08-16(a)(5)

Payment of the mortgage pursuant to the Property Settlement Agreement executed by and between debtor and plaintiff is in the nature of support and maintenance as set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and therefore is not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a debt to a former spouse from discharge when the obligation is in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Stamper v. Stamper (In Re Stamper) · filed 1991-08-20(a)(5)

Based on the above, I conclude that the debtor’s obligation to hold his ex-wife harmless with respect to the car payment, and to maintain insurance on such vehicle, is non-dischargeable as support. Although the language of the Agreement does not specify whether such obligation is support or property settlement, the extrinsic evidence offered as to the parties’ intent demonstrates that having a car was necessary for Ms. Stamper’s support, that she couldn’t pay for one on her existing wages, and that the parties knew it.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes a divorce settlement debt nondischargeable when the obligation is actually in the nature of support.

Goss v. Goss (In re Goss) · filed 1991-08-29(a)(5)(B)

The Court concludes that the obligation is in the nature of support and is therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce-related debt from discharge when the obligation functions as alimony, maintenance, or support.

Peterson v. Peterson (In Re Peterson) · filed 1991-10-30(a)(5)

Thus, pursuant to Section 523(a)(5), a debt to a former spouse that arises under a separation agreement is not dischargeable in bankruptcy if such debt is in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support. ... I find generally that the Settlement Agreement and Decree were not intended by the parties, or by the state court, to create obligations in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Section 523(a)(5) dischargeability of obligations in a dissolution decree is governed by federal bankruptcy law; the state court’s intent may be considered but is not decisive.

Rogers v. Rogers (In re Rogers) · filed 1991-09-24(a)(5)

The controlling law in the determination of dischargeability .of debts is the Federal Bankruptcy law. ... In making this determination, the Bankruptcy Court may consider the circumstances of the dissolution proceeding, the intention of the parties and the intention of the State Court at the time of the entry of the decree. ... None of these considerations however are necessarily or singularly critical to the Bankruptcy Court’s determination.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a debt to a former spouse from discharge when the debt is actually for alimony, maintenance, or support.

In Re the Marriage of Driscoll · filed 1991-09-24(a)(5)

The District Court's decree prohibiting discharge of indebtedness in bankruptcy denying the wife's rights under the Bankruptcy Code is error. The District Court did not find and decree that the $22,500 awarded to the husband was for alimony, maintenance or support for the wife or the minor children.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) makes a divorce-related attorney fee obligation nondischargeable when it is actually in the nature of support.

Hodges v. Martin J. Holmes & Associates (In Re Hodges) · filed 1991-09-30(a)(5)(B)

The state court clearly states in the record that it could not address property division, and set forth a precise and clear Decision detailing its findings and Orders in a such a way that only one interpretation is possible in that the award of attorney fees was in the nature of support to Mrs. Hodges. Therefore, in the absence of other factors which would warrant the characterization of the debt for attorney fees as a property settlement, it must be concluded that the obligation, as set forth in the divorce decree, is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) treats a divorce obligation as nondischargeable support only to the extent it provides life’s basic necessities at a relatively modest cost.

Smith v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1991-09-30(a)(5)

For purposes of § 523(a)(5), then, I conclude that the term “support” entails only the provision of life’s basic necessities at a relatively modest cost.

Section 523(a)(5) makes reasonable child support arrearages nondischargeable even when they are assigned to a public benefits agency and the debtor later remarries the custodial parent.

Lhamon v. Auglaize County Department of Human Services (In re Lhamon) · filed 1991-09-30(a)(5)

Under this provision, obligations which are imposed by a divorce decree, and which are in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support are not dischargeable in a proceeding under Chapter 7. ... Therefore, the child support award is not unreasonable or excessive within the guidelines set out by the Calhoun court. ... It is FURTHER ORDERED that the child support arrearage in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-four Dollars and Forty-eight Cents owed by the Debtor/Plaintiff • to the Auglaize County Department of Human Services be, and is hereby, Nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) uses federal bankruptcy law to determine whether a divorce obligation is support and therefore nondischargeable.

Palm v. Palm · filed 1991-10-03(a)(5)

In determining when an award constitutes alimony, the court looks to federal bankruptcy law, and not the law of the state.

Section 523(a)(5) makes guardian ad litem fees nondischargeable when the services are in the nature of support for the debtor’s child.

Lawson v. Lever (In Re Lever) · filed 1991-10-18(a)(5)

Accordingly, the guardian ad litem fees at issue are hereby determined to be a nondis-chargeable debt, and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, Karen D. Lawson.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) makes a child’s support debt assigned to a county for public assistance reimbursement nondischargeable.

County of Tulare v. Morris (In Re Morris) · filed 1991-12-20(a)(5)(A)

After considering plaintiff’s motion and the supporting documentation, this court agrees with plaintiffs contention that the rights to support embraced by plaintiffs complaint for reimbursement of public assistance represent rights assigned by the minor child to the plaintiff within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(5)(A) and 42 U.S.C. section 656(b) and that the debt represented by plaintiffs complaint is nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts both indemnity obligations and the underlying debts from discharge when they are in the nature of maintenance.

Telgmann v. Maune (In Re Maune) · filed 1991-11-08(a)(5)

In light of the problems associated with discharging the underlying debts while not discharging the indemnity agreements related to those same debts, the language of the Settlement Agreement clearly indicating that the Debtor would ultimately be responsible for the debts he assumed and the fact that discharging the underlying debts while not discharging the indemnity agreements would not further the Debtor’s fresh start, this court finds that a better approach is to hold that the debts underlying the indemnity agreements contained in the Settlement Agreement, as well as the indemnity agreements, are in the nature of maintenance and not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(B) treats fees owed for a child’s court-appointed attorney in a custody dispute as nondischargeable support when the attorney’s services benefit the child.

Peters v. Hennenhoeffer (In Re Peters) · filed 1991-11-15(a)(5)(B)

We find therefore that the fees owed to Hennenhoeffer for his representation of Brendan Peters were in the nature of support as directed by the state court order and thus are nondischargeable debts within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce-related attorney-fee obligation from discharge when it is intended as alimony, maintenance, or support rather than a property settlement.

Balvich v. Balvich (In Re Balvich) · filed 1991-11-25(a)(5)

That testimony combined with the other above-cited factors provided sufficient evidence for the bankruptcy court to determine that the attorney fee obligation was intended to be in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, not as a property settlement. Thus, it is not dischargea-ble.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce settlement’s hold harmless obligation from discharge when the obligation is in the nature of support.

Armento v. Armento (In Re Armento) · filed 1991-11-25(a)(5)

Therefore, the Court finds that the hold harmless agreement is in the nature of support and that the hold harmless agreement renders the credit card charges nondischargeable by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

A debtor who treated divorce payments as alimony for tax purposes may be estopped from calling them a property settlement to discharge them under § 523(a)(5).

In the Matter of David A. DAVIDSON, Debtor. Nancy Y. DAVIDSON, Appellant, v. David A. DAVIDSON, Appellee · filed 1991-12-30(a)(5)

We reverse the district court and hold that Mr. Davidson is estopped from claiming that his payment obligations to Mrs. Davidson are not in the nature of alimony when he has treated the payments as alimony for tax purposes.

Section 523(a)(5) can except an obligation to maintain automobile insurance as child support, but a separate obligation to indemnify a resulting tort judgment is dischargeable when the parties did not intend that indemnity as support.

Pekin Insurance v. Budka (In Re Budka) · filed 1992-01-03(a)(5)

Thus, the court concludes that the parties considered Budka’s provision of automobile liability insurance to be a support obligation. ... The court consequently finds that any liability on the state court judgment which may be imposed on Budka pursuant to the parties’ Agreement and paternity judgment is not in the nature of child support. Thus, it does not fall within the scope of § 523(a)(5) and will not be excepted from Budka’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) makes obligations that are in the nature of alimony or support nondischargeable.

Kearns v. Liebner (In re Kearns) · filed 1992-01-21(a)(5)

With regard to the third and fourth factors, in the present case the obligations in question required payments to be made directly to the recipient in installments over a substantial period of time, and payments were to be terminated upon the remarriage or death of the wife. The Court finds that the obligations in question are in the nature of alimony and support, and are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes a debt to a former spouse nondischargeable only if it is alimony, maintenance, or support.

Quiat v. Berger (In Re Vann) · filed 1992-02-05(a)(5)

Under § 523(a)(5) of the Code, a debt to a former spouse is nondis-chargeable only if it can be characterized as alimony, maintenance or support.

Section 523(a)(5) makes obligations in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support nondischargeable, while a property settlement is dischargeable.

Vittorini v. Vittorini (In Re Vittorini) · filed 1992-02-13(a)(5)

These obligations are in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support within the meaning 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). However, the award of $80,600.00 to the plaintiff as a distributive award based upon a division of the marital property clearly reflects a dischargeable property settlement obligation.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce-related debt from discharge when the obligation to pay it is in the nature of support for a former spouse.

Coopshaw v. Spangler (In re Spangler) · filed 1992-02-28(a)(5)

Therefore, the Court finds the Defendant’s obligation to pay the debt owed to Trustcorp on a loan for the automobile is in the form of support for the Plaintiff and is not subject to discharge under Section 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce decree’s hold harmless obligation from discharge only if it is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.

Mallin v. Mallin (In Re Mallin) · filed 1992-03-12(a)(5)

It is patently inconceivable that Defendant’s duty to ultimately hold him harmless on the second mortgage on her and the children’s residence can be construed as in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. The obligation is dischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) permits discharge of divorce-related fees that were not intended as alimony, maintenance, or child support.

Daulton v. Daulton (In Re Daulton) · filed 1992-03-26(a)(5)

In considering the factors outlined above, the Court concludes that the fees in question were not intended to be in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or child support.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts divorce-related mortgage and attorney-fee obligations from discharge when they function as spousal support.

Hale v. Hale · filed 1992-04-01(a)(5)

Calhoun held that, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), payments must be actually in the nature of alimony or support, to be exempt from discharge but that such payments need not be made directly to the debtor’s spouse or to his children. ... The judgment of the trial court is modified to provide that Husband’s obligations to prevent foreclosure of the second mortgage and to pay $500.00 attorney fees for wife are spousal support obligations.

Section 523(a)(5) can except retroactive child support from discharge when the award provides necessary support and is reasonable.

Shumaker v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 1992-03-16(a)(5)

Nothing in the Calhoun test states that the support obligation has to provide current support for the child, just necessary support. ... As a result of the Calhoun test being satisfied, this Court finds that the support provision is in the nature of child support and is, therefore non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(B) excepts a debt for a child’s support from discharge even when the debt is payable to the child’s attorney rather than to the child.

Jenkins v. Glynn (In Re Glynn) · filed 1992-03-31(a)(5)(B)

It is also noted that other courts have generally concluded that a debt owed to someone other than a debtor’s immediate family comes within the purview of the § 523(a)(5)(B) exception to discharge if the services rendered are actually in the nature of support to those family members. ... Since it is conceded that the counsel fee debt is actually in the nature of support, it is, as a matter of law, nondis-chargeable.