481 F. App'x 492
11th Cir.2012Background
- Davis divorced in Illinois; child support obligation moved to Florida in 2003, making Florida Dept. of Revenue responsible for collection.
- Davis filed a voluntary Chapter 11 in March 2008; claims bar date set for September 29, 2008; plan confirmed May 20, 2009 with discharge.
- Ms. Davis and the Department were notified of the bankruptcy; neither filed proofs of claim before bar date or plan confirmation.
- Davis listed the Department as creditor for disputed $180,000 child-support claim; Department filed a post-confirmation claim on June 1, 2009 and was disallowed as untimely.
- Post-confirmation, the Department sought collection in state court; bankruptcy court enjoined enforcement, finding preclusion by res judicata and collateral estoppel; district court reversed after In re Diaz; Davis appeals.
- The court later emphasizes that In re Diaz applies to determine liability and the extent of post-bankruptcy collection for non-dischargeable child support, and cautions that the amount of support remains disputable in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether In re Diaz controls preclusion of post-bankruptcy collection | Davis argues Diaz does not apply; preclusion should block post-bankruptcy collection | Department argues Diaz controls and allows post-bankruptcy collection | In re Diaz controls; preclusion does not bar post-bankruptcy collection |
| Whether the bankruptcy court’s liability ruling bars further collection | Bankruptcy court decided Davis had no liability; precludes further action | Liability is non-dischargeable; post-bankruptcy collection permissible | Diaz-based reasoning shows liability ruling does not preclude post-bankruptcy collection |
| Whether Chapter 11 vs Chapter 13 distinctions affect the rule | Argues Diaz relies on Chapter 13 distinctions | Rule applies equally to Chapter 11 | No meaningful difference; Diaz applies to both chapters |
| Whether discharge injunction or plan violations matter to preclusion | Ruling based on plan violation; collateral estoppel should apply | Core issue is liability; post-bankruptcy collection allowed regardless | Preclusion not controlling; post-bankruptcy collection permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diaz, 647 F.3d 1073 (11th Cir. 2011) (discharge injunction not violated by post-petition collection of non-dischargeable child support; res judicata/collateral estoppel do not preclude post-bankruptcy liability arguments)
- In re Harell, 754 F.2d 902 (11th Cir. 1985) (limits on amount dispute and jurisdiction in state court for child support claims)
- In re Bell, 236 B.R. 426 (N.D. Ala. 1999) (bankruptcy court review of liability for non-dischargeable obligations)
- In re Club Assoc., 956 F.2d 1065 (11th Cir. 1992) (standard for reviewing bankruptcy court decisions; de novo for legal questions)