545 B.R. 229
Bankr. N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Debtors Gregory and Antoinette Carlson filed Chapter 7; prepetition state-court guardianship proceedings involved their minor granddaughter.
- Michael Raridon, appointed guardian ad litem for the granddaughter, obtained a prepetition state-court judgment for fees ($3,859) entered jointly and severally against the Carlsons and the child’s father; the judgment remained unpaid.
- Raridon sued in bankruptcy court seeking a declaratory determination that the judgment is a nondischargeable domestic support obligation (DSO) under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and § 101(14A).
- The Carlsons moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the debt is not owed to or recoverable by a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor (or such child’s parent/guardian) and is not "in the nature of" support.
- The complaint alleged the guardian ad litem represented the Carlsons’ granddaughter and that the Carlsons were at times appointed co-guardians, but did not allege adoption, termination of parental rights, or that the granddaughter is a legal child of the Carlsons.
- The bankruptcy court concluded the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the granddaughter is the Carlsons’ "child" for § 523(a)(5) purposes and dismissed without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guardian ad litem fees can be a domestic support obligation (DSO) | Raridon: fees for guardian ad litem are part of underlying support/collection expenses and thus nondischargeable | Carlsons: fees do not fall within § 101(14A)(A) payees or § 523(a)(5) "support" for a spouse/former spouse/child | Court: did not decide generally whether guardian ad litem fees can be DSOs here because complaint fails on other ground |
| Whether a guardian ad litem qualifies as an enumerated payee (recoverable by child or child’s guardian) | Raridon: courts have expanded § 523(a)(5) to include fees paid to third-party attorneys/guardians in support disputes | Carlsons: statutory text does not contemplate third-party payees beyond those listed | Court: acknowledged authority both ways but avoided deciding payee issue because complaint did not allege "child" status plausibly |
| Whether the granddaughter is a "child of the debtor" under § 101(14A) | Raridon: guardianship/co-guardian appointment effectively makes granddaughter the Carlsons’ child for DSO purposes | Carlsons: granddaughter is a grandchild, not a child; statutory/ordinary meaning of "child" is immediate offspring; Illinois law distinguishes parents from guardians | Court: held the complaint fails to plausibly allege the granddaughter is the Carlsons’ "child" for § 523(a)(5) purposes |
| Whether state-law guardianship can create parent/child relationship sufficient for DSO | Raridon: Illinois guardianship appointment and duties (custody, nurture, tuition) show parental-type obligations | Carlsons: guardianship under Illinois Probate Act does not terminate parental rights or equate guardian with parent; parental support duties are distinct and created elsewhere in Illinois law | Court: Illinois statutes and cases indicate guardianship alone does not create parent/child status; complaint insufficient to show guardianship created parental relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Stern v. Marshall, 546 U.S. 500 (2011) (federal constitutional/Statutory authority for bankruptcy court decisions in core proceedings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- In re Rios, 901 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1990) (awards of attorneys’ fees in support disputes have been held nondischargeable despite payee not being spouse/child)
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) (narrow construction of nondischargeability exceptions and defining "in the nature of" support)
- In re Uriarte, 215 B.R. 669 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1997) (prepetition guardian-ad-litem fees not DSO where guardianship law did not impose parental support obligation)
- In re Defilippi, 430 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Me. 2010) (guardian/"de facto parent" status under state law can render guardian-ad-litem fee nondischargeable)