479 B.R. 533
Bankr. D. Minn.2012Background
- Adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of a debt arising from attorney’s fees awarded in Hague Convention/ICARA proceedings.
- Lakeman sought nondischargeability of the attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5) and (a)(15); Weed filed a response styled as a motion to dismiss.
- District Court ruled Lakeman’s failure to prove nondischargeability under § 523(a)(15) but awarded fees under the ICARA framework for restitution related to the Hague Convention proceeding.
- Weed, a Chapter 7 debtor, challenged dischargeability in bankruptcy, and Lakeman moved for summary judgment; the matter was ripe for adjudication on the record.
- The central issue is whether the Hague Convention/ICARA award is “in the nature of” child support under § 101(14A) or falls under § 523(a)(15)’s scope.
- Judge Kishel granted Lakeman summary judgment on § 523(a)(5) theory, denied it on § 523(a)(15), and entered judgment that the debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICARA attorney’s-fee award is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15). | Lakeman contends the award falls within § 523(a)(15) as a debt to a child’s parent. | Weed argues the Hague/ICARA award does not originate from a divorce/separation context and thus is not within § 523(a)(15). | No; § 523(a)(15) does not apply to this award. |
| Whether ICARA award is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5) as “in the nature of” support. | Lakeman argues the award functions like child support because it enables return and maintenance for ATW. | Weed argues the award is not a state-court support obligation and not intended as ongoing support for a child. | Yes; the award is “in the nature of” support and nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5). |
| Whether the impact of the award is restorative child-support-like and within the District Court’s intended function. | Lakeman emphasizes restorative purpose to return ATW to Canada and supportkeeping costs. | Weed emphasizes custody-only resolution, not a traditional support relationship. | The award serves a child-support-like function, warranting § 523(a)(5) protection. |
| What governing construction applies to § 523(a)(15) and § 523(a)(5) in this context? | Lakeman relies on statutory definitions and ejusdem generis to include the award within § 523(a)(15). | Weed argues § 523(a)(15) is limited to debts between spouses/children created in divorce/separation contexts; the Hague award does not fit. | § 523(a)(15) does not cover this debt; § 523(a)(5) applies instead. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williams, 703 F.2d 1055 (8th Cir. 1983) (awards of attorney’s fees can be in the nature of support under § 523(a)(5))
- Adams v. Zentz, 963 F.2d 200 (8th Cir. 1992) (purpose and function of the award governs dischargeability under bankruptcy law)
- In re Phegley, 443 B.R. 154 (8th Cir. BAP 2011) (factors for determining whether a debt is in the nature of support under § 523(a)(5))
- Barzilay v. Barzilay, 600 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (analysis of Hague Convention/ICARA remedies and costs against the debtor)