Adams v. Adams, 2017 Ohio 9264

Mary Beth and Derrick Adams divorced in 2003; the divorce decree awarded Derrick a portion of Mary Beth’s retirement benefits.
In a 2015 agreed judgment, Mary Beth agreed to pay Derrick $13,000 at $300/month to resolve certain disputes (retirement payments and dependency exemption issues).
Mary Beth made payments through April 2015, then filed for bankruptcy and testified she received a general discharge; she believed the $13,000 debt was discharged and Derrick did not file an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy contesting dischargeability.
Derrick filed a 2016 motion to show cause alleging Mary Beth defaulted on the $13,000 obligation; a magistrate found Mary Beth in contempt and ordered payments to purge contempt.
The trial court rejected the magistrate’s contempt finding as to dischargeability, holding state courts lack jurisdiction to alter bankruptcy discharge and that Derrick should have sought a nondischargeability determination in bankruptcy.
The appellate court reversed, holding state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(15) when the bankruptcy record does not show a specific determination; it remanded for the trial court to decide whether the debt is nondischargeable under §523(a)(15).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state domestic relations court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the $13,000 debt was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(15)	Mary Beth: bankruptcy court has exclusive authority; Derrick should have pursued nondischargeability adversary in bankruptcy	Derrick: state court may decide dischargeability post-BAPCPA; he was not required to litigate in bankruptcy	State and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction post-BAPCPA; trial court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction and must decide nondischargeability on remand
Whether the general bankruptcy discharge precludes a state-court determination that this specific spousal debt is nondischargeable	Mary Beth: general discharge covered her debts; no specific adversary was filed barring state relief	Derrick: general discharge did not specifically adjudicate dischargeability of this spousal debt	A general discharge that does not specifically identify the debt does not preclude a statecourt from determining whether the debt is excepted from discharge under §523(a)(15)

In re Calhoun, 715 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. 1983) (bankruptcy-court jurisdiction over dischargeability pre-BAPCPA)
Barnett v. Barnett, 9 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 1984) (state courts may characterize debts for nonbankruptcy purposes)
Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio App.3d 401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard and when a trial court misapplies legal standards)