662 B.R. 898
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2024Background
- Annette M. Andrade (Debtor) and Antonio Cunha divorced and entered a Stipulation of Settlement sharing child-related expenses.
- A Judgment of Divorce was entered in October 2018.
- Andrade filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on March 27, 2024; Cunha filed Claim No. 11 for $385,438.18 including both pre- and post-petition debts.
- Post-petition amounts claimed included contingent domestic support obligations (DSOs) and attorney’s fees.
- Andrade objected to the post-petition portion of the claim, arguing they are unmatured and thus disallowed under § 502(b)(5).
- The bankruptcy court conducted oral argument and took the matter under advisement.
Issues
| Issue | Andrade’s Argument | Cunha’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-petition DSOs can be part of a claim | They are unmatured; § 502(b)(5) disallows them | Terms not defined; court can estimate under §502(c) | Disallowed under § 502(b)(5) |
| Allowance of post-petition attorney’s fees | No clear contractual/statutory basis; if DSO, also disallowed | Cites stipulation: defaulting spouse owes fees | Disallowed (as DSOs or for lack of basis) |
| Whether plan should reserve right for future claims | Unnecessary since DSOs are nondischargeable | Plan should reserve right for future assertion | Reservation unnecessary |
| Validity of specific support expenses | Disputed some were covered (529 account) | Claimed full amounts for expenses | Not decided—only disallowance at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. Burnett (In re Burnett), 646 F.3d 575 (8th Cir. 2011) (post-petition domestic support obligations are unmatured and may not be allowed as claims in bankruptcy)
- Little v. Little (In re Little), 634 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2021) (distinguishing between pre- and post-petition support obligations in bankruptcy)
- McKinney v. McKinney (In re McKinney), 507 B.R. 534 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2014) (only prepetition support obligations can be allowed claims in bankruptcy)