620 B.R. 671
Bankr. S.D. Ala.2020Background
- Final Judgment of Divorce (Aug. 27, 2018) ordered Debtor Sidney Toche to pay Aurora Johnson $250/month "as one-half of the Husband’s pension," without expressly labeling it as alimony/support or property settlement.
- Toche filed Chapter 13 on Dec. 6, 2018, did not include the pension in disposable income, and listed Johnson as a $0 priority claim; Johnson did not file a proof of claim or a dischargeability complaint.
- Johnson filed a contempt petition in state court (Nov. 18, 2019) for nonpayment; Toche moved to dismiss in state court (denied), and the state proceeding was stayed pending the bankruptcy court's ruling.
- Johnson moved for relief from the automatic stay (Jan. 20, 2020) to proceed in state court, arguing the pension payments are domestic support obligations (DSOs) and thus non‑dischargeable; Toche opposed, arguing the payments are a property settlement and pointing to Johnson’s procedural omissions in bankruptcy.
- The bankruptcy court found the FJD ambiguous under the Benson factors and federal law, granted limited relief from the stay to allow the Baldwin County Circuit Court to clarify whether the $250 obligation is a DSO, and authorized the state court to adjudicate contempt and pre/post‑petition delinquencies if the obligation is found to be support; the order prohibits collection from estate assets or execution on prepetition amounts without further bankruptcy court approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Toche) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the $250/month pension award a domestic support obligation (DSO)? | It is support/ alimony and therefore non‑dischargeable. | It is a property‑settlement payment, not DSO. | Court: Ambiguous; insufficient record to determine; leave to state court to clarify. |
| Should the automatic stay be lifted to allow state‑court determination? | Yes — state court may determine DSOs and proceed with contempt. | No — bankruptcy protections and plan administration weigh against lifting. | Court: Limited relief from stay granted to permit state‑court clarification. |
| Do Johnson’s bankruptcy omissions (no proof of claim, no dischargeability complaint, no attendance at §341) bar relief? | N/A (primary focus is on substance of the award). | Her procedural failures defeat or prejudice relief. | Court: Procedural omissions do not preclude stay relief; they are not dispositive. |
| Should the bankruptcy court decide the substance or defer to state court? | State court is proper forum to clarify intent of its decree. | Bankruptcy court can decide based on its review of the FJD. | Court: Defer to state court where decree intent is unclear; avoid family‑law intrusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummings v. Cummings, 244 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2001) (bankruptcy and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether an obligation is nondischargeable as support; examine substance over labels)
- Carver v. Carver, 954 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir. 1992) (bankruptcy courts should avoid intruding into domestic relations matters; grant stay relief liberally for support issues)
- In re Benson, [citation="441 F. App'x 650"] (11th Cir. 2011) (identifies multi‑factor test for deciding whether an award is "in the nature of support")
- In re Harrell, 754 F.2d 902 (11th Cir. 1985) (state law is instructive though determination of nondischargeability is federal)
- In re Coon, 522 B.R. 357 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2014) (distinguishable: where the domestic court clearly labeled payments as property settlement, bankruptcy court could decide without lifting stay)