DEBORAH B. BATES, APPELLANT,
v.
R. STONEY BATES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A wife filed for bankruptcy and was discharged of her debts in March 1996. Five months later, a state court entered a final judgment in the couple's dissolution of marriage, ordering the wife to assume half the marital debt. The court reversed, holding that the husband waived his right to challenge the dischargeability of marital debt under federal bankruptcy law by failing to raise the issue in bankruptcy court.
The state court lacks authority to apportion marital debt contrary to a bankruptcy discharge. The husband was obligated to raise any objection to the dischargeability of scheduled debt as an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court within 60 days of the first meeting of creditors, and by failing to do so, he waived his right to challenge the discharge in state court.
[1] A state court lacks jurisdiction to determine exceptions to a bankruptcy discharge after the bankruptcy court has granted a discharge.
[2] A creditor seeking to prevent the discharge of a debt under 11 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In short the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine exceptions to a bankruptcy discharge.”
Establishes that federal bankruptcy courts have exclusive authority over discharge exceptions, not state courts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1995, the wife filed for bankruptcy relief and scheduled her husband as an unsecured creditor. The husband filed for dissolution of marriage…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Bankruptcy Court cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
In August 1995 the wife filed for relief under the federal bankruptcy law. While her bankruptcy case was pending, the husband filed this dissolution of marriage action in the circuit court in January 1996. Later the wife obtained a discharge in March 1996. Five months after the discharge was granted by the bankruptcy court, the circuit court entered a final judgment in the dissolution of marriage action in which the court ordered the wife to assume half of the marital debt. She appeals; we reverse.
In her bankruptcy petition, the wife scheduled her husband as an unsecured creditor, and thus he had notice of the pendency of the bankruptcy case. Nevertheless, he argued in the trial court — and does so again on appeal — that section 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code1 exempts this kind of marital debt from the bankruptcy discharge when the debtor lacks the ability to pay the debt or when the barden is no greater for the bankruptcy debtor spouse than it would be for the other spouse. The problem with the husband’s argument is not in his understanding of section 523(a)(15); instead he has addressed it to the wrong forum. He was obligated to raise it in the bankruptcy court as an objection to her discharge.
Under Bankruptcy Rule 4007, any creditor having an objection to the discharge of a scheduled debt is obligated to file a complaint initiating an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court within 60 days of the first meeting of creditors. The debtor then responds to the complaint, much as a litigant in a Florida court would do so. The issues thus joined as to the dischargeability of the scheduled debt are then tried in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy judge is the trier of fact and determines whether the debt is discharged or excepted from the discharge. In short the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine exceptions to a bankruptcy discharge.
Ordinarily the dissolution of marriage judge has sole authority to apportion marital debts. When one of the parties as here has filed for relief under the bankruptcy code, however, the authority of the state court in that regard has been abrogated by federal law as regards the apportionment of such debt. If the opposing spouse desires to take advantage of the provisions of section 523(a)(15), it is absolutely necessary for the spouse to raise the matter seasonably in the bankruptcy court. It will be too late to do so, as here, in the state court after the discharge has already been granted. Accordingly, it was error for the trial judge here to apportion marital debt contrary to the bankruptcy discharge.
REVERSED.
DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sayegh v. Sayegh, 777 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…yegh because there is some indication in the record that this debt may have been discharged as against Mrs. Sayegh when she filed bankruptcy. It may be that the circuit court’s authority to apportion this debt has been abrogated. See Bates v. Bates, 705 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Finally, we reverse the award of fees to the wife’s trial counsel. No evidence established the services performed or the reasonableness of the fees. See Saussy v. [*1009] Saussy, 560 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Ro…