In re Gambale, 512 B.R. 117

Debtor Philip Gambale filed Chapter 13; former spouse Martine Laureyns filed a proof of claim for $36,463 based on Family Court orders from the couple’s divorce proceedings.
Claim components: $968 Social Security dependent benefit (conceded by debtor to be DSO), $34,400 (86 bi‑weekly $400 payments from Sept 2009–Mar 2013), $900 furnace cost, and $195 attorneys’ fees (withdrawn).
Stipulation (Sept 2009) required debtor to pay $400 bi‑weekly toward listed joint debts (mortgage, utilities, taxes, student loan, etc.); support issues were left unresolved in that stipulation.
Family Court’s final decree (May 2012, effective Mar 2013) ordered continuation/accumulation of the $400 bi‑weekly payments as part of “Division of Debt,” ordered $900 for furnace replacement, and $968 Social Security payment.
Bankruptcy question: whether the $900 furnace expense and the $34,400 in bi‑weekly payments are "domestic support obligations" (DSOs) under 11 U.S.C. §101(14A) and therefore priority nondischargeable claims under §507(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether $900 furnace payment is a DSO	Laureyns: furnace payment was ordered to "maintain the home" and is in nature of support	Gambale: characterized as property allocation / reimbursement of joint expense, not support	Held: $900 is a DSO — the furnace was necessary household support and qualifies as priority under §101(14A)
Whether $34,400 (86 bi‑weekly $400 payments) is a DSO	Laureyns: payments were described at times as "support/household expenses" and thus should be DSOs	Gambale: payments were allocated to repayment of joint marital liabilities (property division), not support; debtor treated them as general unsecured	Held: $34,400 is not a DSO — court finds payments were intended to address joint debt/property division and not "in the nature of support"

Smith v. Pritchett, 586 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2009) (describing test for whether obligation is in nature of support under §101(14A) and §523(a)(5))
Werthen v. Werthen (In re Werthen), 329 F.3d 269 (1st Cir. 2003) (labels in state orders not controlling; inquiry focuses on whether obligation is in nature of support)
In re Efron, 495 B.R. 166 (Bankr. D. P.R. 2013) (collecting factors courts consider in DSO/support analysis)