Robin Carpenter v. Lewis Amos, 624 B.R. 657

Lewis and Robin Amos divorced in 2011; the state court ordered Lewis to pay child support and later, after modification proceedings, increased his child support and awarded attorney’s fees to Robin (Carpenter) tied to custody/support litigation.
State court awards included one-half of Carpenter’s attorney fees ($17,793.91) and additional fee awards ($4,547 and $9,000) for related proceedings; the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the state rulings.
Lewis Amos filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on October 12, 2017; Flesner Wentzel, LLC (Carpenter’s counsel) filed proofs of claim totaling $31,740.90 for the court-ordered attorney fees and characterized them as domestic support obligations (DSOs).
Amos objected and Flesner brought an adversary proceeding; the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the attorney-fee awards are DSOs under the Bankruptcy Code.
The bankruptcy court ruled the attorney-fee claims qualified as DSOs and entered summary judgment for Flesner; Amos was ordered to propose a plan treating the claims as priority DSOs; Amos’s Sixth Amended Plan so provided and was confirmed over his objection.
Amos appealed; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment and plan confirmation, holding the fees are nondischargeable DSOs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state-court‑ordered attorney fees related to custody/support litigation are domestic support obligations under the Bankruptcy Code	Fees are punitive or sanctions for litigation conduct and thus not DSOs; bankruptcy court must independently assess parties’ finances	Fees were awarded to secure children’s welfare and fall within statutes permitting counsel to be paid directly; function of award was support-related	Fees are DSOs; summary judgment for Flesner affirmed and the plan treating them as priority DSOs confirmed
Whether bankruptcy court must relitigate state-court findings or apply a "needs" test	Bankruptcy court had an independent duty to evaluate financial disposition and apply a needs test	No per se needs test; bankruptcy may rely on state-court findings and should not relitigate or reweigh facts on summary judgment	No independent needs test required; Rooker–Feldman/limits on federal review apply; bankruptcy court properly resolved issue on undisputed facts

In re Williams, 703 F.2d 1055 (8th Cir. 1983) (characterization of support obligations is federal question for bankruptcy law)
Adams v. Zentz, 963 F.2d 197 (8th Cir. 1992) (focus on function/purpose of an award when deciding support characterization)
Draper v. Draper, 790 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1986) (rejects a separate "needs" test for §523(a)(5) support characterization)
Boyle v. Donovan, 724 F.2d 681 (8th Cir. 1984) (state labels not binding; inquiry centers on award’s function)
Trentadue v. Gay, 837 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2016) (attorney fees in custody/support litigation can be treated as DSOs where they serve children's welfare)
Snider v. City of Excelsior Springs, 154 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 1998) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal collateral attack on state court judgments)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard—no weighing of evidence, only determination of genuine issues of material fact)