11 U.S.C. § 523

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s inability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a divorce-related property debt when the debtor proves an inability to pay it from income or property beyond what is reasonably necessary for support.

Kennard v. Kennard (In Re Kennard) · filed 2001-01-29(a)(15)

Since Kevin, the debtor, has demonstrated that he does not have the ability to pay the debt from income or property not reasonably necessary to be expended for his own support, the obligation is dischargeable.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-harm defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005; its support ruling under § 523(a)(5) remains separate.

Section 523 excepts children’s tuition reimbursement from discharge as support and can also except divorce-related attorney’s fees and tax refund reimbursement when the debtor can pay and fails to show that discharge would benefit him more than it would harm his former spouse.

Gatliff v. Gatliff (In Re Gatliff) · filed 2000-12-13(a)(5), (a)(15)(A), (a)(15)(B)

For the foregoing reasons, the tuition reimbursement for the minor children’s high school education is in the nature of support and is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5). The attorney’s fees and the tax return reimbursement are not in the nature of support but rather are in the nature of a property settlement under § 523(a)(15) and are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15)(A) and (B).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-harm defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts debts assumed in a divorce agreement from discharge when the debtor fails to prove either inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Helsel v. Marsh (In re Marsh) · filed 2000-12-20(a)(15)

The Court concludes, therefore, that the debtor failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that either of the affirmative defenses of § 523(a)(15)(A) or (B) apply, leading to a conclusion that the two debts at issue are excepted from the debtor’s discharge.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to consider a live-in romantic companion’s income when deciding whether a debtor can pay a divorce-related debt, if they are economically interdependent or form a single economic unit.

In Re Lawrence Michael Short, Debtor. Lawrence Michael Short v. Short · filed 2000-11-15(a)(15)(A)

We also hold that a bankruptcy court may consider the income of a debtor’s live-in romantic companion in determining a debtor’s ability to pay under § 523(a)(15)(A) whenever the debtor and his or her live-in romantic companion are economically interdependent or form a single economic unit.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005; this decision’s partial-discharge analysis used that former defense.

Section 523(a)(15) permits partial discharge of divorce-related debts when a debtor can pay part, but not all, of the obligation.

Baker v. Baker (In Re Baker) · filed 2000-10-13(a)(15)

This Court refuses to take the “all-or-nothing” approach because it appears to be contrary to the reasonable statutory interpretation and purpose of § 523(a)(15). Thus, it is inclined to follow the more liberal view on the issue to conclude that partial discharge in cases dealing with § 523(a)(15) is an “equitable and pragmatic” practice which does not allow the debtor a windfall if he or she is unable to pay the total balance of the debt, yet has sufficient resources to partially meet the obligation.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005; this partial-discharge ruling applied the former version.

Section 523(a)(15) permits a bankruptcy court to partially discharge a separate debt arising from a divorce decree.

In Re: Steve P. Myrvang and Joanne L. Myrvang, Debtors, June Cotner Graves v. Steve P. Myrvang Joanne L. Myrvang · filed 2000-11-21(a)(15)

We believe that construing the words “such debt” to preclude a partial discharge would run counter to the bankruptcy courts’s equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Therefore, we hold that a bankruptcy court has the discretion to order a partial discharge of a separate debt arising out of the terms of a divorce decree.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-harm defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) makes divorce-related debts nondischargeable when the debtor can pay them and fails to show that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Bubp v. Romer (In Re Romer) · filed 2000-09-11(a)(15)

Therefore, those debts enumerated in this Opinion are hereby found to be nondis-chargeable martial obligations in accordance with § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce-related property settlement debt when paying it would leave the debtor without enough income for necessary support.

Strayer v. Strayer (In Re Strayer) · filed 1996-04-10(a)(15)(A)

Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court can only conclude that the Debtor does not have the ability to pay the Credit Card Debt or the Property Division Debt. Paying the debts would reduce the Debtor’s income below that necessary for the support of the Debtor and the Debtor’s dependents, a result clearly at odds with the Congressional intent expressed in the legislative history for Section 523(a)(15). ... IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Credit Card Debt and the Property Division Debt are hereby DECLARED dischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(15)(A).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B)’s benefit and detriment balancing test includes the financial circumstances of the debtor’s and former spouse’s new spouses.

Celani v. Celani (In Re Celani) · filed 1996-04-17(a)(15)(B)

Where the debtor and/or the debt- or’s former spouse have remarried, the financial circumstances of the new spouses logically and sensibly should be included in the balancing test set forth in § 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits a court to discharge or modify the portion of a divorce property settlement debt that the debtor cannot pay.

McGinnis v. McGinnis (In Re McGinnis) · filed 1996-04-23(a)(15)

Accordingly, if the debtor is only able to pay a portion of the subject debt, the court may discharge or modify the remainder of the obligation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) considers the parties’ finances at the bankruptcy filing, through trial, and in the reasonably foreseeable short-term future when deciding whether a divorce-related debt is dischargeable.

Sterna v. Paneras (In Re Paneras) · filed 1996-04-29(a)(15)

Absent a specific time referenced in the statute, and lacking a rule for guidance, the Court will consider the parties’ relative positions not only at the time of the petition, but also throughout the time of trial, in light of any reasonably foreseeable short-term future prospects for the parties as indicated by the evidence adduced.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) requires the debtor to show that the benefit of discharging a divorce-related debt outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Campbell v. Campbell (In Re Campbell) · filed 1996-04-29(a)(15)(B)

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that under § 523(a)(15)(B), Mr. Campbell has failed to present sufficient evidence to indicate that the benefit to him of the discharge of this debt outweighs the detrimental consequence to Ms. Campbell.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) calls for balancing the benefit of discharge to the debtor against the harm to the former spouse only if the debtor has the ability to pay.

Samayoa v. Jodoin (In Re Jodoin) · filed 1996-05-16(a)(15)(B)

The § 523(a)(15)(B) balancing of benefit and detriment of discharging the debt applies if, and only if, the debtor does not lack the ability to pay. In other words, if the debtor lacks the ability to pay, the debt is discharged without further analysis and without consideration of balancing. But if the debtor does not lack the ability to pay, then whether the debt is discharged turns on the outcome of the balancing.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act changed § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005, removing its former ability-to-pay and balancing defenses and requiring a debt owed to a spouse, former spouse, or child.

Section 523(a)(15) covers a debt to a former spouse arising from a divorce decree even without an express hold harmless provision when state law imposes an obligation to pay the apportioned debt.

Schmitt v. Eubanks (In Re Schmitt) · filed 1996-05-28(a)(15)

Further, despite the absence of the “hold harmless” language, under Arkansas law, the debtor incurred a debt to her husband in connection with the divorce proceeding, albeit after the decree was entered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) does not require a divorce decree to direct payment to a former spouse for a divorce-related debt to be nondischargeable.

Johnston v. Henson (In Re Henson) · filed 1996-06-11(a)(15)

Section 523(a)(15) does not require that a court order the debt be paid directly to the spouse.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) measures a debtor’s ability to pay a divorce-related property settlement debt by subtracting reasonably necessary support expenses from net income.

Morris v. Morris (In Re Morris) · filed 1996-06-17(a)(15)(A)

In turning to the merits of this ease, the Court must first determine whether Debtor has the ability to pay the Household debt. As indicated by the statutory language of § 523(a)(15)(A), such a determination is arrived at by subtracting those expenses “reasonably necessary” for the maintenance or support of the debtor and his dependents from his net income.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) permits discharge of a divorce-related property debt despite the debtor’s ability to pay when the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the former spouse.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 1996-07-10(a)(15)(B)

Yet, Congress specifically recognized in § 523(a)(15)(B) that, in addition to inability to pay, which is specifically recognized as a ground for discharge in § 523(a)(15)(A), equity may require, or, at least, permit, the discharge of an obligation in the nature of a marital property settlement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) allows a third-party creditor to seek nondischargeability of a divorce-related debt even if the creditor is not the debtor’s spouse, former spouse, or child.

Zimmerman v. Soderlund (In Re Soderlund) · filed 1996-07-10(a)(15)

The issue immediately before me is whether BD & G, which is not a spouse, former spouse, or child of the Debtor, can seek to have the debt to it found nondischargeable under the new clause. ... I find that BD & G is entitled to go forward with its case under § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s former inability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce-related property award when the debtor cannot pay it from income or property after necessary support expenses.

Brown v. Colangelo (In Re Colangelo) · filed 1996-07-16(a)(15)(A)

Since the Debtor is not engaged in business, the first exception is met if the Debtor does not have the ability to pay the equitable distribution award from his income or his property after deducting those expenses reasonably necessary to be expended for the maintenance or support of himself and his dependents.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) requires courts to consider a new spouse’s or live-in companion’s income when assessing a debtor’s ability to pay a divorce-related debt.

Cleveland v. Cleveland (In Re Cleveland) · filed 1996-07-16(a)(15)(A)

Consequently, when applying the “ability to pay” standard of section 523(a)(15)(A), a court must consider the income of a new spouse or spousal equivalent in order to reach a complete satisfaction of the task before it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of divorce-related debts when the debtor lacks income beyond reasonable support needs to pay them.

Willey Ex Rel. Willey v. Willey (In Re Willey) · filed 1996-07-22(a)(15)(A)

The Court finds that, under § 523(a)(15)(A), (i.e., the “disposable income” test,) this Debtor does not have the ability to pay and the debts are dischargeable and therefore discharged.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits courts to consider a debtor’s new spouse’s finances when determining how much of the debtor’s income is reasonably necessary for support.

Beasley v. Adams (In Re Adams) · filed 1996-08-28(a)(15)(A)

Therefore, it was not error for the bankruptcy judge to consider evidence of Adams’ new wife’s financial situation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts divorce-related property settlements from discharge when the debtor can pay and discharge would not benefit the debtor more than it harms the former spouse.

Henderson v. Henderson (In Re Henderson) · filed 1996-08-13(a)(15)

Turning to the adversary proceeding at hand, the Court concludes that the Debtor’s obligation to provide for post-Decree “repairs, maintenance, upkeep, mortgage payments, taxes and insurance” on the former residence represents a nondischargeable property settlement under § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) requires the court to weigh the benefit of discharging a divorce debt to the debtor against the harm to the former spouse; the former spouse’s inability to pay alone does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Jenkins v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins) · filed 1996-09-04(a)(15)(B)

Consequently, the Court finds that under § 523(a)(15)(B), the detriment to Plaintiff of discharging the debts does not exceed the benefit to Debtor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits a court to assess divorce-related hold harmless liabilities separately and discharge some while leaving others nondischargeable.

Greenwalt v. Greenwalt (In Re Greenwalt) · filed 1996-09-23(a)(15)

Accordingly, this Court concludes that it is authorized to hold nondisehargeable a portion of the debt owed to the plaintiff under the decree of dissolution.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) measures a debtor’s ability to pay a divorce-related debt using disposable income.

Armstrong v. Armstrong (In Re Armstrong) · filed 1996-12-18(a)(15)(A)

However, the language of subsection (a)(15) is almost identical to the language found in § 1325(b)(2); therefore, this court finds the “disposable income” test to be the appropriate standard by which to determine the debtor’s ability to pay.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) makes a divorce-related property debt dischargeable when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it from income beyond reasonably necessary expenses.

Soforenko v. Soforenko (In Re Soforenko) · filed 1997-01-07(a)(15)(A)

As a result, the Debtor clearly does not have the ability to pay the $57,500 Obligation without sacrificing his well-being. Therefore, the Court must find the $57,500 Obligation dischargeable.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act made qualifying divorce-related property debts nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15) for later cases.

Section 523(a)(5) distinguishes support obligations from dischargeable property settlements, including a hold harmless obligation intended as a property settlement.

In Re Ladak · filed 1997-02-27(a)(5)

A cursory review of the Final Divorce Decree shows clearly that the hold harmless agreement was intended as a property settlement and not for support. We make this Section 523(a)(5) finding even though no adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5) has been filed by or against Debtor in either this Court or State Court.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay defense from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce judgment debt when the debtor cannot pay it from income or property beyond what is reasonably necessary for support.

Wynn v. Wynn (In Re Wynn) · filed 1997-01-23(a)(15)(A)

After examining the Debtor’s assets and her present and prospective earning ability, ... the Court concludes that the Debtor does not have the ability to pay the judgment in favor of Wynn from income or property not reasonably necessary for her support.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act broadened § 523(a)(15); the former hold-harmless requirement no longer governs cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) does not except predivorce joint debts from discharge when the divorce decree creates no hold harmless obligation to the former spouse.

McCracken v. LaRue (In Re LaRue) · filed 1997-01-23(a)(15)

In sum, this court holds that, in the absence of a hold harmless agreement, § 523(a)(15) is inapplicable to joint debts that were incurred by the Debtor prior to the divorce proceeding.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits separate dischargeability decisions for different divorce obligations, with the benefit and detriment of discharging each debt considered before the debtor’s ability to pay.

Carlisle v. Carlisle (In Re Carlisle) · filed 1997-03-04(a)(15)

When different divorce obligations are present in a § 523(a)(15) case, prudence requires that the second prong of the test be analyzed first. If the equities of the discharge of each debt are analyzed first, a smaller amount of debt may be used to analyze the debtor’s ability to pay.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former benefit-versus-detriment defense from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) makes a divorce-settlement debt nondischargeable when the debtor’s benefit from discharge does not outweigh the harm to the former spouse.

Scigo v. Scigo (In Re Scigo) · filed 1997-03-10(a)(15)(B)

Discharging the debtor’s obligations under the divorce decree would not result in a benefit to the debtor that outweighs the detrimental consequences to the plaintiff.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) allows a divorce-related property settlement debt to be discharged when the debtor proves an inability to pay it.

Boyd-Smith v. Brock (In Re Brock) · filed 1997-03-13(a)(15)(A)

Having found that the Debtor has met his burden of proof under Section 523(a)(15)(A), it is not necessary to reach the balancing-of-hardship test set out in Section 523(a)(15)(B). For all the foregoing reasons, it is the conclusion of the Court that the Debtor does not have the ability to pay the Credit Card Debt, and that the Credit Card Debt is not rendered non-dischargeable by Section 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt when the debtor proves an inability to pay it, considering the income of the debtor’s household.

Shellem v. Koons (In Re Koons) · filed 1997-03-18(a)(15)(A)

The Debtor has met the burden of proving that, as of the time of trial, the income of both his new wife and him together did not reflect an ability to pay the debts for which he agreed to hold the Plaintiff harmless in the Agreement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt if the debtor shows an inability to pay it from income or property beyond what is reasonably necessary for support.

Kirchner v. Kirchner (In Re Kirchner) · filed 1997-03-25(a)(15)(A)

Consequently, the Court concludes Debtor has demonstrated he cannot pay the obligations which Plaintiff contends should be nondischargeable out of income or property not reasonably necessary for his and his daughter’s support. He has therefore sufficiently met his burden of showing the first of the two dischargeability alternatives under § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a nonsupport divorce debt when the debtor cannot pay it or the benefit of discharge to the debtor outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Lengyel v. Lengyel (In Re Lengyel) · filed 1997-04-02(a)(15)

The Court finds that George Lengyel does not have the ability to pay the remaining credit card and bank loans. The Court finds that the benefit to George Lengyel of the discharge of the remaining credit card debt and bank loans outweighs any detriment to Joan Lengyel.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) presumes qualifying divorce-related property obligations nondischargeable and places the burden on the debtor to establish a statutory defense.

Wellner v. Clark (In Re Clark) · filed 1997-04-02(a)(15)

If the issues under Section 523(a)(15) have been joined in a timely-filed adversary complaint, and it has been determined that the debts are other than those described in Section 523(a)(5), the burden of going forward to rebut the presumption and establish that the debts are dischargeable lies with the debtor. ... The Debtor has failed to rebut the presumption of nondischargeability under either Section 523(a)(15)(A) or 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a divorce-related property settlement debt to prove inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Williams v. Williams (In Re Williams) · filed 1997-05-02(a)(15)

In order to receive a discharge, Donald must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacks the ability to pay the debt or that receiving a discharge will result in a benefit to him that outweighs any detriment to Virginia.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) makes a divorce-related debt nondischargeable when the debtor fails to show that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Crossett v. Windom (In Re Windom) · filed 1997-04-21(a)(15)

Thus, after reviewing the totality of the circumstances in this case, the court holds that the debtor failed to meet his burden under § 523(a)(15) by proving that the benefit of obtaining a discharge of this debt to the debtor outweighs the detrimental consequences to the plaintiff. As a result, the court holds that the debt of $17,472 owed by the debtor to the plaintiff is nondischargeable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) presumes that divorce obligations other than support are nondischargeable, subject to exceptions based on the debtor’s ability to pay or the balance of harms.

Brennick v. Brennick (In Re Brennick) · filed 1997-05-05(a)(15)

Deciding a ease under Section 523(a)(15) begins with a presumption that the remaining obligations are nondisehargeable, see In re McCartin, 204 B.R. 647, 653 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996) and cases cited therein, which can be rebutted if it can be shown that either the debtor lacks the ability to pay these debts, or that the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the nondebtor if these debts are discharged.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce settlement debt when the debtor cannot pay it from income or property beyond what is necessary for maintenance or support.

Bushee v. Bushee (In Re Bushee) · filed 1997-07-30(a)(15)(A)

As for the motor home, however, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that this property is not necessary for the maintenance or support of the Debtor. Mr. Bushee lives in the motor home, it clearly is not a luxury item, and is necessary for his own maintenance and support. Considering the totality of circumstances, we find that the Plaintiff has not met her burden under Section 523(a)(15)(A) with regard to this item.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)'s ability-to-pay and detriment tests are applied as of the time of trial, rather than when the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Johnson v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1997-09-15(a)(15)

This Court agrees with the courts that find that the appropriate time to apply the ability to pay and detriment tests is at the time of trial and not at the time of the filing of the petition.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment inquiries from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits consideration of a debtor’s live-in companion’s income when assessing ability to pay a divorce obligation and weighing the benefit of discharge against harm to a former spouse.

Halper v. Halper (In Re Halper) · filed 1997-09-16(a)(15)

This court agrees with the reasoning of those courts which find that consideration of all income that flows into a debtor’s immediate household is relevant to the determination of a debtor’s ability to meet his obligations under a property settlement agreement. ... Moreover, this court believes that the determination of the benefit of the discharge to the debtor versus the detrimental consequences to the non-debtor former spouse which the court must make under § 523(a)(15)(B), mandates consideration of the income of a live-in companion’s income.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed its former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits a court to discharge part of a divorce-related debt according to the debtor’s ability to repay it.

Perkins v. Perkins (In Re Perkins) · filed 1998-01-14(a)(15)

It has been held that under § 523(a)(15) a debt may be partially discharged according to the facts of the particular case, just as with determinations of dis-chargeability of student loan debts under § 523(a)(8). ... This Court finds this practice equitable and pragmatic, and will adopt such a rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) allows a divorce-related debt to be discharged when the debtor cannot pay it from income or property beyond what is reasonably necessary to support the debtor or dependents.

Schaefer v. Deppe (In Re Deppe) · filed 1998-02-02(a)(15)(A)

Deciding the case on this prong, i.e., § 523(a)(15)(A), allows me to ignore the considerable evidence and argument both parties presented on balancing the equities. ... If, as he says, he cannot pay child support, she has established that there is no issue of material fact that she cannot be responsible for and indemnify him on the loan to his parents. Accordingly, she is entitled to summary judgment in her favor.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a divorce-related property settlement debt if the debtor cannot pay it or the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Nay v. Hegerty (In Re Hegerty) · filed 1998-05-28(a)(15)

Sub-sections (A) and (B) of Section 523(a)(15) are written in the disjunctive: a property settlement debt is non-discharge-able unless the debtor can prove (A) he is unable to pay the debt, or (B) the benefit to the debtor of discharge outweighs the detriment to the creditor of discharge.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15) from § 523(c)(1)’s complaint requirement for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) makes divorce property settlement debts potentially nondischargeable, but a creditor with notice of the bankruptcy must file a timely dischargeability complaint.

Marriage of Merritt v. Merritt · filed 1998-04-13(a)(15)

The filing requirement means that an otherwise nondischargeable hold harmless provision would be discharged if the party failed to file a timely complaint, assuming that party had either notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) covers property settlement debts incurred in a divorce, including debts owed directly to a former spouse, unless a statutory exception applies.

Gamble v. Gamble (In Re Gamble) · filed 1998-06-22(a)(15)

Section 523(a)(15) purports to apply to “any debt . . . [not in the nature of alimony or child support] that is incurred in the course of a divorce or separation,” and the bankruptcy court was clearly correct to give this provision the full reach implicated by its plain language.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce property settlement from discharge when the debtor can pay it and the harm to the former spouse and children outweighs the debtor’s benefit from discharge.

Shea v. Shea (In Re Shea) · filed 1998-06-05(a)(15)

Therefore, Dr. Shea’s obligation to pay the $152,000 property settlement is excepted from his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a marital debt if the debtor cannot pay it while maintaining reasonable support, or if discharge benefits the debtor more than it harms the former spouse.

Gagne v. Gagne (In Re Gagne) · filed 1998-06-26(a)(15)

In essence, in order for marital debts to be discharged, the Court must find either that a debtor does not have the ability to pay and reasonably maintain and support himself or herself, or that the benefit of the discharge to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the non-debtor spouse.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits a court to limit a divorce-related debt’s nondischargeability to the amount the debtor can repay.

Melton v. Melton (In Re Melton) · filed 1998-08-10(a)(15)(A)

However, Defendant clearly does not have the ability to pay the present judgment all at once. Thus, we return to the partial repayment analysis as affecting Defendant’s ability to repay under § 523(a)(15)(A). ... Considering the factors above as well as the Debtor’s income and expenses, this Court finds that the Defendant has the ability to make payments to Plaintiff on the fifteenth of every month commencing after the date of this Opinion in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for a period of five years.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) permits discharge of a divorce-related property debt when the debtor’s benefit outweighs the former spouse’s detriment, considering the former spouse’s current spouse’s financial contributions.

Turner v. McClain (In Re McClain) · filed 1998-08-31(a)(15)(B)

If the income of a live-in girlfriend can be deemed to be a factor to be considered in weighing the totality of the circumstances, then surely the income of a spouse should not be excluded from an examination of the totality of the circumstances. ... Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it is the conclusion of the Court that the benefit to the Debtor of discharging the Mobile Home Debt, outweighs the detriment to the Creditor of discharging the debt.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) left this divorce-decree debt nondischargeable.

Dunn v. Dunn (In Re Dunn) · filed 1998-09-17(a)(15)

ORDERED that the financial obligation on the Geo Storm debt owed Mr. Dunn pursuant to the Judgment Entry and Divorce Decree entered by the Clermont County Court of Domestic Relations, Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, is not discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce-related property debt from discharge unless the debtor cannot pay it or the benefit of discharge to the debtor outweighs the harm to the former spouse or children.

Newcomb v. Miley (In Re Miley) · filed 1998-09-25(a)(15)

If the debtor does not have the ability to repay the debt, this ends the matter and the debt is discharged under § 523(a)(15)(A). Even if the debtor does have the ability to repay the debt, the debtor could still obtain a discharge under § 523(a)(15)(B) if discharging the debt would result in a benefit to the debtor that outweighs the detrimental consequences to the debtor’s former spouse or children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce property settlement debt from discharge when the debtor can pay it and discharge would harm the former spouse more than it would benefit the debtor.

Lonian v. Lonian (In Re Lonian) · filed 1998-09-28(a)(15)

Based upon the foregoing, it is the Court’s opinion Defendant has failed to establish that he does not now have the ability to pay the obligation owed Plaintiff. ... However, in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that to allow Defendant to discharge his obligation to Plaintiff would be far more detrimental to Plaintiff than it would be beneficial to Defendant.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Under the version of Section 523(a)(15)(A) applied here, a divorce-related property debt is dischargeable when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it.

Killeen v. Whittaker (In Re Whittaker) · filed 1998-10-06(a)(15)(A)

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that the debtor is unable to pay the $199,532.08 debt owed to Ms. Killeen. ... The debt is dischargeable under Section 523(a)(15)(A).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) allows discharge of a divorce property settlement debt when the debtor lacks income to pay it after reasonable expenses for the debtor and dependents.

Busch v. Busch (In Re Busch) · filed 1998-10-19(a)(15)(A)

This Court applies the disposable income test for 523(a)(15). The language of Section 523(a)(15)(A) mirrors that of Section 1325(b)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) allows discharge of a divorce-related property debt when the debtor cannot pay it after reasonable support expenses.

McElroy v. McElroy (In Re McElroy) · filed 1998-10-09(a)(15)(A)

The record shows that Defendant does not have the ability to pay the debt to Creditor after taking into consideration amounts reasonably necessary for the support of debtor and her dependents. Therefore, this Court finds that Defendant meets the requirements of Section 523(a)(15)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and is entitled to discharge of the debt owed to Plaintiff.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) weighs the benefit of discharge to the debtor against the harm to a former spouse by considering their financial conditions and future prospects.

Hart v. Molino (In Re Molino) · filed 1998-11-04(a)(15)(B)

The benefit referred to in § 523(a)(15)(B) is appropriately determined by evaluating the debtor’s and the former spouse’s financial conditions including their assets, income, expenses, liabilities and future prospects. Reviewing the record in light of these factors, Molino has not met his burden of proof.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) assesses whether a debtor can make reasonable payments on a divorce debt from disposable income, even without enough assets to pay it in full.

Dennison v. Hammond (In Re Hammond) · filed 1998-12-17(a)(15)(A)

The Court concludes that given the Debtor has a monthly surplus of $1,186 over and above what is reasonably necessary for maintenance or support, the Debtor has failed to meet his burden under § 523(a)(15)(A). The focus is on whether the Debtor can make reasonable payments on the debt from his disposable income, not merely the availability of a lump sum equal to the amount of the debt.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) includes exempt property when assessing a debtor’s ability to pay a nonsupport marital obligation.

Smith v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 1998-12-30(a)(15)(A)

More importantly, the reference to property in section 523(a)(15)(A) must necessarily include exempt property.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a marital property settlement debt when the debtor proves an inability to pay it from income or property beyond what is reasonably needed for support.

Nazario v. Nazario (In Re Nazario) · filed 1999-01-15(a)(15)(A)

Accordingly, since Debtor has met his burden of proof that he falls within the exception to nondischargeability under § 523(a)(15)(A), the Debtor’s obligations to Sheryl under the Agreement will be discharged.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) places on the debtor the burden to show that the benefit of discharging a divorce debt outweighs the harm to the former spouse or child.

Oswald v. Asbill (In Re Asbill) · filed 1999-03-15(a)(15)(B)

Considering the totality of each party’s circumstances, including the lack of good faith in the Debtor’s conduct, this Court concludes that the Debtor has failed to meet his burden under § 523(a)(15)(B) of convincing the Court that the benefit of the discharge of this debt outweighs the detrimental consequences to Ms. Oswald and the child of the Debtor.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) considers a debtor’s future earning opportunities when assessing the ability to pay a divorce-related debt.

Brasslett v. Brasslett (In Re Brasslett) · filed 1999-03-18(a)(15)(A)

Ronald may only have one bird in hand but he has many more in the bush, and under § 523(a)(15)(A) the birds in the bush are not to be ignored.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) makes a debtor’s own contractual divorce attorney fees dischargeable when the debtor alone owes them.

Dean v. Brunsting (In Re Dean) · filed 1999-03-19(a)(15)(B)

No matter how a court interprets the phrase “not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation,” it is the analysis required by Section 523(a)(15)(B) that will always make a debt for matrimonial and related attorney fees due only from a debtor, solely as the result of a contractual relationship with the attorney, dischargeable under Section 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) allows discharge of a marital property debt if the debtor cannot pay it or the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

In Re Leonard · filed 1999-04-06(a)(15)

Consequently, we find that the debt owed by Mrs. Leonard to her ex-husband falls squarely within the parameters of § 523(a)(15) and we therefore turn now to the question of whether either of the two exceptions enunciated in subsections (A) and (B) of that statute have been met.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of divorce-related property settlement debts when the debtor cannot pay them or the benefit of discharge to the debtor outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Tarbox v. Tarbox (In Re Tarbox) · filed 1999-04-26(a)(15)

The facts in this case demonstrate conclusively that the Debtor does not and never has had the ability to pay the debts in question. Furthermore, a comparison of the net incomes of the Debtor and the Plaintiff reveals that the Plaintiff is financially stronger, even when her obligations as a custodial parent and lack of employee benefits are considered. Thus, discharging the Debtor’s property settlement debts results in a benefit to the Debtor that outweighs the detriment to the Plaintiff.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a divorce-related property settlement debt if the debtor proves either an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Sparagna v. Metzger (In Re Metzger) · filed 1999-04-28(a)(15)

Section 523(a)(15) provides a disjunctive test; the debtor need only prove either inability to pay or that the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the plaintiff.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce-related debt from discharge when the debtor can pay it and the benefit of discharge does not outweigh the harm to the former spouse.

Tersen v. Tersen (In Re Tersen) · filed 1999-05-18(a)(15)

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to prove that she is unable to pay the debt she owes to Plaintiff or that the benefit of a discharge to her would outweigh the detrimental consequences to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court holds that the debt Defendant owes to Plaintiff is excepted from Defendant’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) measures a debtor’s ability to pay using the debtor’s income alone, excluding a new spouse’s income.

Burgess v. Henrie (In Re Henrie) · filed 1999-06-22(a)(15)(A)

However, the plain language of § 523(a)(15)(A) restricts the determination of the ability to pay solely to the income of the debtor.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) prevents discharge of a divorce-related property settlement debt when the harm to the former spouse and children outweighs the benefit to the debtor.

Hastings v. Konick (In Re Konick) · filed 1999-07-14(a)(15)(B)

Therefore, the harm caused by the discharge of the claim to Ms. Hastings and Debtor’s two minor children would be far greater than any benefit to Mr. Konick.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts attorney fees incurred to enforce a nondischargeable property settlement debt from discharge, subject to its statutory exceptions.

Salerno v. Crawford (In Re Crawford) · filed 1999-07-26(a)(15)

If the primary obligation, a property settlement debt, is nondischargeable, then ancillary debt such as attorneys fees to enforce the primary obligation are also nondischargeable. Therefore, the sum of $500.00 in attorneys fees incurred by Salerno to enforce the nondischargeable primary obligation is also excepted from discharge unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt when the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detrimental consequences to the former spouse.

Fureigh v. Haney (In Re Haney) · filed 1999-08-25(a)(15)(B)

Both parties, in fact, may be able to obtain a fresh start by this discharge, and, on balance, the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the plaintiff such that the debt is dischargeable under section 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) measures a debtor’s ability to pay a divorce-related debt as of the date of trial.

Cameron v. Cameron (In Re Cameron) · filed 1999-10-18(a)(15)(A)

The text of § 523(a)(15)(A) implies that the date of trial is the proper point at which to measure a debtor’s ability to pay.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it after reasonably necessary expenses.

Paul v. Forman (In Re Forman) · filed 1999-11-24(a)(15)(A)

However, a § 523(a)(15) debt is dis-chargeable if the debtor cannot pay the debt. ... To determine ability to pay, a court should consider the debtor’s monthly income and whether the debtor’s listed expenses are reasonably necessary.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for bankruptcy cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a property settlement debt from discharge when the debtor can pay it and discharge would harm the former spouse more than it would benefit the debtor.

Adler v. Adler (In Re Adler) · filed 2000-01-14(a)(15)

Weighing the parties’ financial conditions, their relative future earning potential, and their credibility, we find that the Plaintiff has met her burden to show that the Defendant has the ability to pay the debt in question. ... Clearly, the detriment to Christina by discharging this obligation outweighs any benefit to Walter. ... For all of these reasons we find that Walter’s obligation under the Property Settlement Agreement is determined to a nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) makes a debt arising from a separation agreement nondischargeable when the debtor fails to prove either statutory exception.

Miller v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 2000-01-31(a)(15)

Accordingly, as the Defendant has not established that either of the exceptions contained under § 523(a)(15) are applicable, the marital debt at issue in this case is nondischargeable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) places the burden on the debtor to prove inability to pay a divorce-related obligation, using realistic earning potential to measure income.

Mandanici v. Slygh (In Re Slygh) · filed 2000-02-03(a)(15)(A)

For this purpose, however, a debtor’s income is measured by his realistic earning potential, not by lifestyle or other choices which restrict his income. ... Under section 523(a)(15)(A) Slygh had the burden of proving his inability to pay the Hold Harmless Obligation. He failed to carry that burden.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) makes a divorce-related property debt nondischargeable unless the debtor proves inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Lipira v. Kaczmarski (In Re Kaczmarksi) · filed 2000-03-06(a)(15)

Accordingly, this case falls within the purview of § 523(a)(15), and it became Debtor’s burden to prove either that he does not have the ability to pay the debt or that the benefit to him of a discharge of the debt outweighs the detriment to Lipira if the debt is discharged.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) keeps a divorce debt from being discharged when the debtor fails to show that the benefit of discharge outweighs the detriment to the former spouse.

Findley v. Findley (In Re Findley) · filed 2000-03-02(a)(15)(B)

Michael has the burden of proving that he lacks the ability to perform the Hold Harmless Obligation under subsection (A) or that the benefit to him of discharging the Hold Harmless Obligation would outweigh the resulting detriment to Brandy under subsection (B). ... Based on the foregoing the Court concludes that the Hold Harmless Obligation is nondischargeable under subsection 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) generally makes debts incurred under a divorce agreement nondischargeable unless the debtor cannot pay or the benefit of discharge to the debtor outweighs the harm to a former spouse or child.

Hoag-Beasley v. King (In Re King) · filed 2000-03-03(a)(15)

Upon consideration of the above factual findings, including the relative present and future earning potential of both parties, their respective ages, dependent obligations, their lack of disabilities, their em-ployability, their actual employment status, the terms to which they had agreed and intended to perform under the Agreement, and the finding of overstated monthly expenses in the Debtor’s budget, it is hereby determined that the exceptional provisions of subsections (A) and (B) of § 523(a)(15) are not applicable. Thusly, the subject obligation ($9,500.00) is hereby determined to be nondischargeable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a debtor and spouse are separated and live apart, the spouse’s earnings may be excluded from the ability-to-pay and benefits/detriments tests under § 523(a)(15).

Johnson-Bahr v. Bahr (In Re Bahr) · filed 2000-06-02(a)(15)

As noted above, the defendant is now employed, but he and his wife have now separated and they are living apart. Consequently, the court will not take into account the earnings of Lorraine Bahr when applying the “ability to pay” test or the “benefits/detriments” test.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a divorce-related property debt if the debtor cannot pay it or if discharge benefits the debtor more than it harms the former spouse or children.

Law Firm of Morgan v. LeRoy (In Re LeRoy) · filed 2000-07-13(a)(15)

Hence, the Court finds that the Debtor does not have the present or likely future ability to pay the debt to the Law Firm for purposes of § 523(a)(15)(A). In addition, the Debtor has met the “detriment test” under § 523(a)(15)(B) because the discharge of the debt will benefit him with no detrimental consequences to his former spouse or children. Consequently, the Court holds that the debt owed to the Law Firm is dischargeable under § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-harm defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce-related property settlement debt from discharge unless the debtor proves an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Beckford v. Beckford (In Re Beckford) · filed 2000-09-27(a)(15)

Dr. Beckford has established a prima facie basis for his claim under § 523(a)(15). By the terms of the superior court decree, the debt was created to equalize the distribution of community property in connection with the parties’ divorce, not to provide alimony, maintenance, or support for Dr. Beckford’s benefit. Accordingly, Mrs. Beckford, the debtor in this action, bears the burden of proof to establish the dis-chargeability of the debt.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) makes a debt arising from a separation agreement nondischargeable unless the debtor proves an inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Koenig v. Koenig (In Re Koenig) · filed 2001-05-29(a)(15)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant has not established that either of the exceptions noted under § 523(a)(15) are applicable, and thus the Court holds that the marital debt at issue is nondischargeable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) makes divorce-related debts nondischargeable when the debtor can pay them and discharge would harm the former spouse more than it would benefit the debtor.

Cirilli v. Cirilli (In Re Cirilli) · filed 2001-07-13(a)(15)

Further, Debtor has-failed to satisfy either exception to Section 523(a)(15) as to the SunMark and Wacho-via debts. Therefore, all three debts are determined to be nondischargeable.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former benefit-versus-detriment defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt when the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the former spouse.

Royer v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2001-07-19(a)(15)(B)

Once a plaintiff meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the debtor to come forth with evidence to prove one of the exceptions noted in Section 523(a)(15) apply: either (A) debtor cannot afford to pay the debt, or (B) the benefit to debtor of the discharge outweighs the detriment suffered by the ex-spouse.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former inability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt when the debtor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he cannot pay it.

Woolard v. Axline (In re Woolard) · filed 2001-08-06(a)(15)(A)

Having considered the relevant factors under § 523(a)(15)(A), the Court determines that the plaintiff has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he is unable to pay the additional monthly spousal payment of $2,100 to the defendant.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt if the debtor cannot pay it from available income or property or if discharge benefits the debtor more than it harms the former spouse.

Allman v. Allman (In re Allman) · filed 2001-08-22(a)(15)

In the present case, Lisanne has established that she is entitled to relief under both § 523(a)(15)(A) and (B). Accordingly, the debt contested herein is deemed to be dischargeable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) makes a divorce-related debt nondischargeable unless the debtor proves an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Smith v. Shurelds (In Re Shurelds) · filed 2001-11-02(a)(15)

In sum, the circumstances presented in this case do not establish for the Defendant her requisite burden under either § 523(a)(15)(A) or § 523(a)(15)(B). As a result, the Court holds that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00), as is required under the terms of the Parties’ divorce decree, is a nondischargeable debt for purposes of bankruptcy law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce debt from discharge when the debtor can afford to pay it and discharge would harm the former spouse more than it would benefit the debtor.

Hammermeister v. Hammermeister (Hammermeister) · filed 2001-12-17(a)(15)

The Court further finds that the Mortgage Obligation is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)(A) and (B).

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits a court to consider a debtor’s property and reasonable expenses when deciding whether the debtor can pay a divorce-related marital debt.

Calabrese v. Calabrese (In Re Calabrese) · filed 2002-02-06(a)(15)(A)

Under the “ability to pay” test of § 523(a)(15)(A), a court is not limited in its inquiry to solely the debtor’s income. Instead, the specific language of § 523(a)(15)(A) permits a court to consider real or personal property held by a debtor that is “not reasonably necessary to be expended for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor ...”

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed both former defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) allows a debtor to discharge a divorce-related debt by proving either an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse or child.

Brasington v. Brasington · filed 2002-03-07(a)(15)

As is clear, the two exceptions of § 523(a)(15) are listed in the disjunctive; thus, the debtor need not satisfy both (A) and (B) to secure a discharge. The burden of proving either exception rests at all times on the debtor.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a nonsupport divorce debt from discharge unless the debtor proves an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the detriment to the former spouse.

Whitlach v. Allgor (In Re Allgor) · filed 2002-03-22(a)(15)

FURTHER, the nonsupport property settlement debt is nondisehargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) of the Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a divorce-related property settlement debt if the debtor proves either inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Maldonado v. Sanabria (In Re Sanabria) · filed 2002-04-04(a)(15)

Although the inquiry could end at this point, as Sanabria need show only that one of the two exceptions to § 523(a)(15) is met, an analysis of the “detriment test” is warranted. ... Additionally, Sanabria successfully proved that the sum falls within both ... of the exceptions to § 523(a)(15), and as such is dischargeable in his Chapter 7 petition.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts divorce-related marital debt from discharge when the debtor fails to prove either an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the detriment to the former spouse.

Sacher v. Gengler (In re Gengler) · filed 2002-04-19(a)(15)

Accordingly, based upon these findings, the Court holds that the Debtor has not established his requisite burden under either paragraphs (A) or (B) of § 523(a)(15). Therefore, the marital debt in question is held to be nondischargeable.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the two former defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) places the initial burden on the creditor to show that a debt arose from a separation or divorce, then requires the debtor to prove an exception to nondischargeability.

Erd v. Erd (In Re Erd) · filed 2002-05-10(a)(15)

With respect to this section, the Plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that the debt at issue arose from a separation or divorce. Once this burden has been established, however, the burden then shifts to the debtor who must establish her/his compliance with one of the two exceptions to nondischargeability set forth in § 523(a)(15): (1) the “ability to pay” test of § 523(a)(15)(A); or (2) the “balancing test” under § 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) permits a court to discharge part of a divorce property debt when the debtor can afford to pay only part of it.

Rushlow v. Rushlow (In Re Rushlow) · filed 2002-05-03(a)(15)

While there is a split of opinion among the courts which have considered this issue, and the statute does not make the answer clear, it is our determination that an “all or nothing” approach to the discharge of property settlement debts is not mandated by the language of the statute.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) measures a debtor’s ability to pay from the debtor’s own income or property; a parent’s wealth alone does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Eastwood v. DeDomenico (In Re DeDomenico) · filed 2002-05-15(a)(15)(A)

Eastwood urges the court to consider his parents’ wealth in determining DeDomenico’s ability to pay, but the statute clearly provides that the debt is discharged if the debtor has no ability to pay it from income or property of the debtor. DeDomenico has no present or contingent future interest in any of his parents’ property. Their wealth alone does not make his debt to Eastwood nondischargeable.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits courts to consider a debtor’s future earning capacity, prior employment, and health when assessing ability to pay a divorce-related debt.

Gemza v. Rogan (In Re Rogan) · filed 2002-09-27(a)(15)(A)

Nonetheless, “ability to pay” under subsection (A) of Section 523(a)(15) is not a static concept, compelling its assessment at a fixed point in time such as the bankruptcy petition date, the time of the trial, etc. Rather, it is a fluid concept which permits the Court to consider a debtor’s prior employment, future employment opportunities, health status, etc. to determine whether the future wealth and earning capacity of that debtor will be sufficient to allow for payment of the subject debt.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former § 523(a)(15) inability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts nonsupport divorce debts from discharge when the debtor fails to prove an inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Mesenbrink v. Eiklenborg (In Re Eiklenborg) · filed 2002-11-25(a)(15)

FURTHER, Debtor has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence an inability to pay, or that the benefit to her of a discharge would be greater than the detriment to Plaintiff in regard to Debtor’s assumption of the loan obligation and debts to the various creditors. Thus, these debts are nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed § 523(a)(15)’s inability-to-pay defense for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) allows a divorce-related debt to be discharged when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it.

Gilpin v. Gilpin (In Re Gilpin) · filed 2002-12-26(a)(15)(A)

As the Court has determined that Debtor lacks the ability to pay the subject indebtedness, the inquiry ends and the debt is deemed dischargeable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of divorce-related debt when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it.

Bucher v. Bucher (In re Bucher) · filed 2003-02-12(a)(15)(A)

As the Court has determined that the Debtor lacks the ability to pay the subject indebtedness, the inquiry ends and the debt is deemed dischargeable.

Law changed since For bankruptcy cases begun on or after October 17, 2005, Congress removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses.

Section 523(a)(15) calls for consideration of the parties’ financial circumstances at the dischargeability hearing rather than at the time of divorce.

Hester v. Daniel (In Re Daniel) · filed 2003-02-26(a)(15)

The Court notes that under section 523(a)(15), the court considers the financial conditions of the parties at the time of the dischargeability hearing rather than at the time of the state court divorce.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) permits discharge of a nonsupport divorce debt if the debtor proves an inability to pay or that the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Bullinger v. Wehr (In Re Wehr) · filed 2003-04-01(a)(15)

Further, Wehr has met his burden of proving that he does not have the ability to pay and that the benefit to him of discharging the debts outweighs the detriment to Mary Ann Bullinger under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce property settlement debt when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it in a lump sum or periodic payments.

Robertson v. Dennis (In Re Dennis) · filed 2003-05-23(a)(15)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by ... finding that Dennis “does not have the ability ... to pay” the debt to Robertson, in either a lump ... sum or periodic payments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts debts incurred in a divorce from discharge when the debtor can pay and discharge would harm the former spouse more than it would benefit the debtor.

Northshore Neurological Surgery Assoc. v. Provenza (In Re Provenza) · filed 2003-07-24(a)(15)

With respect to Ms. Friend’s adversary complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), the court will render judgment in Ms. Friend’s favor in the amount of $1,592,386.77, plus all costs and legal interest from date of judgment, this amount being determined to be non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce debt from discharge when the debtor can pay it and the benefit of discharge does not outweigh the harm to the former spouse.

Huchteman v. Ingalls (In Re Ingalls) · filed 2003-08-04(a)(15)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Debtor has the ability to repay the subject indebtedness, and the inquiry proceeds to Section 523(a)(15)(B). ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the benefit of the discharge is outweighed by the detrimental consequences to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the subject debts are deemed nondis-chargeable under Section 523(a)(15).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) permits discharge of a divorce-related debt when the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detrimental effect on the former spouse.

Mannix v. Mannix (In Re Mannix) · filed 2003-08-01(a)(15)(B)

This Court holds that Debtor’s obligation to Plaintiff is discharged under subsection 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of divorce-related debts when the debtor proves an inability to pay them.

Hazelton v. Hazelton (In Re Hazelton) · filed 2003-08-01(a)(15)(A)

Based on a review of Debtor’s expenses and the monetary amount of each obligation, the Court finds that Debtor does not possess the ability to pay any of these debts and they are not excepted from discharge under subsection 523(a)(15). Since Debtor has met his burden under subsection 523(a)(15)(A), the Court finds it unnecessary to review the evidence under subsection 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) allows a divorce debt to be discharged when the benefit to the debtor outweighs the harm to the former spouse; the court considers the former spouse’s current household income.

Roshan v. Nouri (In Re Nouri) · filed 2003-08-01(a)(15)(B)

Although the Code is silent on whether Plaintiffs spouse’s income should also be considered in our analysis, this Court concludes that its inclusion is necessary. Under state law, Plaintiffs current spouse owes her the duty of support which ultimately results in the twining of their finances. It would appear that the Court cannot properly measure the impact that discharging this debt would have on Plaintiff unless her total household income is also considered. Taking that into consideration, this Court holds that this debt is also discharged under section 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce debt from discharge when the debtor can pay it and the harm to the former spouse from discharge outweighs the benefit to the debtor.

Grunwald v. Beck (In Re Beck) · filed 2003-08-25(a)(15)

FURTHER ORDERED that Gina Michelle Beck’s debt to her former spouse, Ronald M. Grunwald, totaling $34,373.52, is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because the debt was incurred in a decree of dissolution of marriage, Beck has the ability to pay the debt from her disposable income under § 523(a)(15)(A), and the relative detriments to Grunwald in allowing Beck to discharge the debt outweigh the benefits to Beck under § 523(a)(15)(B).

Law changed since For bankruptcy cases begun on or after October 17, 2005, Congress made debts under § 523(a)(15) excepted from discharge without a creditor complaint; the former filing requirement no longer applies.

Under the version of § 523(a)(15) applied here, an obligation arising from a divorce property settlement was discharged when the creditor did not seek a nondischargeability ruling.

In Re Dill · filed 2003-10-03(a)(15)

The obligation was within § 523(a)(15) but the creditor did not seek to hold it nondischargeable notwithstanding her knowledge of it. The obligation was, therefore, within the ambit of § 362(a). It was also discharged by the discharge order entered on June 12, 2003, and within the ambit of § 524.

Law changed since For bankruptcy cases begun on or after October 17, 2005, Congress removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a marital debt from discharge when the debtor fails to establish either the inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Biederman v. Stoodt (In Re Stoodt) · filed 2003-08-21(a)(15)

In summation, the Court cannot find that the Debtor has sustained his burden under either of the exceptions to nondis-chargeability contained in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). Therefore, the Court must find that the deficiency judgment rendered on the mortgage obligation the Debtor was ordered to assume pursuant to the Parties’ divorce decree is a nondischargeable debt for purposes of bankruptcy law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a marital debt from discharge when the debtor fails to prove either statutory defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Collins v. Tielsch (In Re Tielsch) · filed 2003-09-24(a)(15)

Collins’ Alimony Award is determined to be NONDISCHARGEABLE pursuant to § 523(a)(15). The Court so rules because it concludes, in turn, that the Debtor has failed to prove, by the necessary preponderance of the evidence, that one of the conditions set forth in § 523(a)(15)(A) & (B) exists.

Law changed since For bankruptcy cases begun on or after October 17, 2005, Congress made debts under § 523(a)(15) excepted from discharge without a creditor complaint; the former filing requirement no longer applies.

Under § 523(a)(15), a prepetition equitable distribution debt is discharged if the spouse does not object before the bar date.

Schorr v. Schorr (In Re Schorr) · filed 2003-09-05(a)(15)

The resultant pre-petition “debt” owed by debtor was discharged in accordance with § 727(a) of the Bankruptcy Code when defendant did not in accordance with § 523(a)(15) object to its discharge prior to the bar date for so doing.

Law changed since For bankruptcy cases begun on or after October 17, 2005, Congress removed § 523(a)(15)’s ability-to-pay and benefit-versus-detriment defenses.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a divorce property division debt when the debtor cannot pay it while meeting a nondischargeable support obligation.

Hoberg v. Hoberg (In Re Hoberg) · filed 2003-09-25(a)(15)(A)

Because of the Debtor’s perpetual obligation to pay spousal support totaling $1,559,904.85 ($1,213,357.00 plus $346,547.85) as of February 24, 2003, plus daily interest thereafter of $488.63, the court finds that the Debtor does not have the ability to pay the property division obligation of $486,487.53 ($378,567.93 plus $107,919.60) as of February 24, 2003, plus the daily interest thereof of $155.28, considering his current disposable income of $18,108.96 and his anticipated future disposable income of $134,786.96 over the next several years. Therefore, the property division obligation is discharged under § 523(a)(15)(A).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts a divorce-related debt to a former spouse from discharge unless the debtor cannot pay it or the benefit of discharge outweighs the harm to the former spouse.

Ferguson v. Enciso (In Re Enciso) · filed 2003-10-15(a)(15)

Having determined that neither of the exceptions found at § 523(a)(15)(A) or (B) is applicable in this case, we conclude that the debt owed to plaintiff by debtor is excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former discharge defenses and changed the treatment of divorce-related debts in cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) covers divorce-related debts other than support obligations, but a covered debt is discharged if the creditor does not timely contest dischargeability in bankruptcy court.

Scoggins v. Scoggins · filed 2003-10-23(a)(15)

Thus, we hold that the debt in question falls under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). ... If Plaintiff wished to contest the dischargeability of the debt, she had to do it in bankruptcy court. She did not do so. Therefore, Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff concerning Defendant’s 401(k) was discharged in bankruptcy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts divorce-related nonsupport debts from discharge unless the debtor proves an inability to pay or that discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Brown v. Brown (Brown) · filed 2003-11-24(a)(15)

However, the particular debts in question that Debtor owes Plaintiff, or for which Plaintiff will be liable if not satisfied by Debtor, are § 523(a)(15) debts. Because Debtor has not established that she cannot pay the debts or that the benefit to her will outweigh the harm to Plaintiff, these debts are not discharged.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 523(a)(15)(B) requires the debtor to show that the benefit of discharging a marital debt outweighs the detriment to the former spouse.

Buchanan v. Henrikson (In re Henrikson) · filed 2003-11-12(a)(15)(B)

Inasmuch as the burden of proof is upon Defendant to show that the benefits to him of discharging the subject debt outweigh the detriments to Plaintiff of having the debt deemed nondischargeable, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to meet his burden. Accordingly, the Court finds the subject debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Law changed since The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(15) removed the former inability-to-pay defense for divorce-related debts in cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) requires a debtor seeking to discharge a divorce property settlement debt to prove inability to pay by a preponderance of the evidence.

Spiezio v. Vitek · filed 2004-02-25(a)(15)(A)

Thus Vitek did not prove to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that he met one of two exceptions to non-disehargeabilty under § 523(a)(15)(A).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay and relative-benefit defenses from § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) places the burden on a debtor to prove that a divorce-related debt is dischargeable because the debtor cannot pay it or because discharge would benefit the debtor more than it would harm the former spouse.

Morgan v. Woods (In Re Woods) · filed 2004-04-12(a)(15)

Therefore, I find that the creditor has established that the debt was incurred in the course of a divorce, and the burden of proof thus shifts to Debtor to establish that the debt is dischargeable under § 523(a)(15)(A) or (B).

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay defense in § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005; the partial-discharge analysis applies only under the former text.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits partial discharge of a divorce-related debt when the debtor can pay only part of it.

Carlin-Blume v. Carlin · filed 2004-07-29(a)(15)(A)

This Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that a partial discharge of the debt is appropriate in this case. To take the other view would only allow for either a full discharge despite an indication that the debtor has the ability to satisfy the debt in part, or no discharge despite an indication that the debtor lacks the ability to fulfill his/her entire obligation.

Law changed since The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act removed the former ability-to-pay defense in § 523(a)(15) for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15)(A) permits discharge of a marital debt when the debtor lacks the ability to pay it; absent extenuating circumstances, financial help from family is discounted in that assessment.

Ramey v. Barton (In Re Barton) · filed 2004-11-01(a)(15)(A)

Therefore, in the absence of an extenuating circumstance, — none of which exist here — such donations should be discounted in any § 523(a)(15)(A) analysis. Put into practice then, the Debtor cannot be found to have the “ability to pay” his marital debt because, although his required payments to the Plaintiff are minimal, the Debtor’s monthly budget shows a negative balance when outside financial help is discounted. As such, the Debtor has met his necessary burden under § 523(a)(15)(A).

Law changed since The 2005 amendment removed § 523(a)(15)’s inability-to-pay and benefit-versus-harm defenses for cases begun on or after October 17, 2005.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts divorce-related property division debts from discharge when the debtor fails to prove either statutory defense.

Thomas v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 2005-01-20(a)(15)

For the reasons assigned, the court holds that the Fleet credit card debt and the equalization payment provided for in the judgment of the state district court in connection with the parties divorce proceedings constitutes a property division and not a support obligation under § 523(a)(5), and that the obligations are not subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).