557 B.R. 801
Bankr. D. Or.2016Background
- Plaintiff and Defendant were long-term cohabitants in a nonmarital, opposite-sex relationship who did not register a domestic partnership under Oregon law.
- Defendant filed a dissolution petition in Marion County Circuit Court on January 31, 2013; the proceeding included discovery disputes and an April 8, 2015 sanctions order.
- An April 8, 2015 General Judgment by Default and a May 26, 2015 Supplemental Judgment awarded Plaintiff $41,933 in attorney fees and costs with interest.
- Defendant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on December 16, 2015.
- Plaintiff seeks to except the state court judgments from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) on grounds related to spousal status and Oregon domestic partnership law.
- Court notes unresolved questions about whether registered domestic partnerships accord the same status as spouses for § 523(a)(15) purposes and whether Plaintiff has standing to pursue constitutional challenges without proper procedural steps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff qualifies as a designated payee or “spouse” under §523(a)(15). | Plaintiff argues non-designated payees may recover if debt affects a designated payee. | Plaintiff is not a designated payee and domestic partnership status does not render her a spouse. | Plaintiff not a spouse under Oregon law; insufficient standing to pursue the claim. |
| Whether Oregon registered domestic partners are equivalent to spouses for §523(a)(15). | RDP rights should be treated as marriage-equivalent in discharge exceptions. | Designation of payees is narrow; RDPs are not marriages for §523(a)(15). | Court declines to decide constitutional equivalence at this stage; statutory interpretation favors narrow designation. |
| Whether Plaintiff has standing to pursue constitutional challenges and FRCP 5.1/FRBP 9005.1 procedures." | Plaintiff seeks standing to challenge the constitutionality of Oregon’s domestic partnership provisions. | Standing lacking absent concrete injury or attempted registration. | Remains undecided pending compliance with procedural notice requirements; 14 days to cure or challenge may be abandoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang), 163 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1998) (broad view that debt nature governs §523(a)(15) reach beyond designated payees)
- In re Gunness, 505 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2014) (non-designated payees may recover when debt harms designated payee’s finances)
- In re Francis, 505 B.R. 914 (9th Cir. BAP 2014) (divorce-related obligations may fall under §523(a)(15) without direct payee designation)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex marriage recognized; state definitions evolve post-DOMA)
- Latham v. Latham, 274 Or. 421 (Or. 1976) (contract not void; public policy on cohabitation not equating to marriage)
- Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2010) (FFA rights and domestic partnership context discussed in Oregon)
- Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014) (Oregon constitutional/equal protection considerations in domestic partnership context)
- Oregon Family Fairness Act discussion, N/A (2010-2015) (statutory framework for domestic partnerships in Oregon (ORS 106.300-106.340))