please the court i'm jim anderson and i represent the appellant laurie could ocean laurie is the debtor's former spouse i would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal this appeal asks whether the debtor can file a chapter seven bankruptcy to defeat laurie's right to the property awarded her by the divorce decree the debtors claimed one hundred twenty five thousand dollars homestead exemption in the sale proceeds of the marital residence that the divorce decree had earmarked for the payment of joint marital debt this court must decide if laurie contests can force the decree for her own benefit as a party to the divorce this court must decide if laurie can compel the debtor to use his half of the sale proceeds of the marital residence bankruptcy courts have the ability to to set aside or excuse judgments right that's part of what happens in a bankruptcy proceeding generally yes but why should this divorce decree be different from another judgment because florrie is rights to enforce that your career specifically non dischargeable under the bankruptcy code and laurie's rights to enforce the decree vested titian so that the property subject to her rights to enforce the decree never became an asset of the debtors the state under section five forty one or subject to an exemption claim under section five forty five twenty two of the co seemed remarkably flexible to me and unlike the kind of judgment debt that we were just talking about is a dischargeable one do you not see any distinction between the two well as i said the debt is non dischargeable because lori i'm saying it's not really a debt because the divorce decree was so dang really really is it is a debt that's non dischargeable because the supreme court has stated that the  definition of a debt under the bankruptcy code is extremely broad and includes the right to receive payment from a property of the debtor here the decree ordered here the decree  the debtor litigated in the divorce proceedings to keep the residence for himself the the family court denied him that relief ordered but both spouses to sell their interest in the property the decree gave them both a one half had obligations and responsibilities but until the property once was sold it was there and i have trouble understanding how there was a debt at that because it meets the bankruptcy code definition of a  debt which is broad enough to include the right to receive property or receive payment from property of the debtor the decree ordered the debtor to sell his half of the marital residence and apply the proceeds to pay joint marital debt as ordered by the decree that's a claim that's a debt within the meaning of the bankruptcy code and therefore it's laurie's right to divorce that debt is non dischargeable to really have a deadline in it and when he had to sell and they were to proceed in good faith to sell as quickly as possible and that the debtor dragged his feet for three years and was held in contempt by the family court for proceeding in bad faith to find reason to not sell the house but also explicitly envision the possibility that the sale wouldn't happen in a timely way and then  rental payment obligation on him that's true you're right so that and so it's a little more fluid then imposing a hard and fast deadline even with a contempt to create isn't it well there was no hard and fast it deadline other than they were to the debtor was to proceed in good faith to market and sell the property as quickly as markham circumstances would permit lorries mother esther clint is one of the joint marital debts that the decree ordered paid and the debtors hundred twenty five thousand dollars homestead exemption reduces the sale proceeds available to pay that debt this court should reverse the bankruptcy courts allowance of the debtors hundred twenty five thousand dollars homestead exemption for three very the the debtor is seeking to enforce her right to the property settlement under the to create which required the sale of the proceeds the sale of the house and the use of the proceeds to a joint marital debt that lori not with dated at least one of those  and how does she do that if she's she's not the mother and father she has the the mother's estate can enforce the collection of the debt before i get to the three specific reasons i would like to point to the general area that the bankruptcy court made and that permeated its entire decision the bankruptcy court erred because it failed to distinguish between moreas right to enforce the divorce decree for her own benefit as a party to the divorce and the rights of her mother esther can no to enforce her judgment lien against the debtors homestead as a third party editor laurie's rights to enforce the decree for her benefit are non dischargeable under section five twenty three of the code esther klein on the other hand was not a party to the divorce and her judgment lien is potentially avoidable under section five twenty two of the bankruptcy code the bankruptcy t they paid they gave them two hundred thousand dollars right along with her to her right so what is an incident a very issue as opposed to a third party beneficiary esther canal had no right to enforce the decree on her own behalf recor but she did have she did receive the benefit of payment of her debt when warring enforces the divorce decree for her own benefit by compelling mr could to pay the joint to use the proceeds from the sale of the residence to pay the joint debt as he is ordered by the decree re complicate it is your honor attenuate no it's it's just a literal application of the party's rights and liabilities under the bankruptcy code bankruptcy is complicated but it's not attenuated the fact that esther was an incidental beneficiary does not alter laurie's right to enforce a decree for her own benefit under the bankruptcy code and a simple banker well your honor yes but we would urge this court to uphold the bankruptcy court not once but twice because there was a motion to reconsider and the district court when it properly used federal jurisdiction to determine the property rights the property the a state of the debtor and the distribution of that debtors property to his creditors this department has three branches of his arguments the preemption argument  the property of the estate argument and the discharge argument and somehow has attempted to push them all together in a way that confuses the simple bankruptcy facts that are before us this debtor was was forced into bankruptcy sounds like the facts say there was a motion to compel there was but at one point the parties all agreed that the property was worth a certain amount and as time passed there wasn't enough to go around and in the unique circumstance the debtor was being strong arm by a creditor and the kohen or working together to get him to lower the price and when it was apparent that there wasn't enough to pay this arrangement he read that he would shall read on the procedure would be walked off and then and then he seemed to be trying to avoid disagreement and going into bankruptcy correct or out of a bankruptcy serves a specific purpose and they had invested over seven hundred thousand in the property they thought it was worth that much at the time and time passes the property wasn't worth that much and he was getting pressure to lower the price to the point where he couldn't pay student loans couldn't pay the credit cards and couldn't pay mr clinton full and being the most aggressive creditor there was no room to sort of negotiate that down and there wasn't enough equity in the poverty to satisfy everybody so he came to the bankruptcy court with all of his property and all of his debts and he said bankruptcy court what do i do with this please help me distribute balancing my right to a fresh start which bankruptcy affords with all the rights of all the creditors not just mr clinton who happens to be his  mother making her particularly aggressive and aligned with the co owners so he did his right to a fresh start outweighed the agreement he previously made in divorce proceedings well your honor the divorce didn't really change anything they were joint owners beforehand and they had joint that's before hand and the divorce orders said you've got all these property sell them and you have property that could pay your debt so sell them and pay the debt so he didn't really change anything with that respect there just wasn't enough to go around but if the divorce to create self had directed lori to pay all the joint debts and directed david to sell the house in care for her half of the proceeds would not be a non discharge dischargeable debt if it had been framed differently just a little more carefully with a directive and didn't have these other provisions such as allowing him to stay in the property paid that was you know a clear directive when that have an effect on the result we have here it may have it was it was framed as your honor noted very flexibly it was very broad and it didn't it could have given miss could actually mean it could have forced her could have ordered the title to her but it didn't it was very open and it gave them both equal rights to this property and it let's say she did have a non dischargeable claim against the debtor it's an absolutely different issue than exemptions and property the estate if you have a non dischargeable claim against a debtor you still can't take the house so the court was very clear in separating the discharge issue from the enforcement and lien issue and the rights of the debtor has when he comes to the bankruptcy court and he has all of his property thrown in and the bankruptcy court determines what's property of the estate and how who gets what and how do you distribute among creditors so i think it could have but it didn't and the cases that helen sites like brooks and forand where it was clear there was a lien and there was a loser person who was deemed to hold it in trust for for the winner doesn't have that property anymore but in this case just saying you have joint property and you owned it does not take that property out of the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court was a joint property for a non flexible divorce decree that directs payment and in order to protect against the circumstance occurring is that right well if there were a winner that winner should get a lien it happens all the time happens all the in bankruptcy where there's an order that says there's fifty thousand in equity in the property so you need to refinance or sell and give it to your ex and time passes the property is not worth enough and they go to the bankruptcy court and in chapter thirteen at least which is what we tried to do you can not pay all that if there's just not enough to go around so the lien or some other right would be definitely more important in something that they should have done if there were a winner but in this case there clearly wasn't a winner in state court or a loser joint property joint debts sell your property and pay your creditors why wasn't there a lien or and for half of the number worse to the extent than that you didn't own the there wasn't one orders your honor i'm not sure what happened in the family court but there's already enough water and right to enforce just isn't true because so did he she had no right to his house they each had half and each had to pay their debt so your honor we would argue that your honour's pardon me that preemption does not apply because there was no state court loser the parties were ordered to the property equally and pay their debts equally the property a state argument that they're making that somehow the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction over this property doesn't really make sense in the context where they were both ordered to keep their property and they were both ordered to pay their debts so if anybody was ordered to pay a debt if that property were exempted from the bankruptcy state it would make no sense of bankruptcy estate is very broad and includes all interests legal equitable contingent future and that's what the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over their third argument about the discharge i think i touched on a little bit but it's very separate from enforcement and it's not something that the debtor can the sorry the appellant kind of and force against the debtor with respect to his homestead and in fact is very clear that a claim is a right to payment from did not have a right to payment there was no payment order and there wasn't any right from his property they each got their half of the property and it wasn't something that was ordered to attach in any way to the debtors half so when it became apparent that there wasn't enough to pay the mother the debtor filed in an effort to try to figure out what their rights were among the creditors because it was an unique circumstance in this case that the cohen or happens to be aligned with the creditor who is her mother and if it were her mother she could file an discharges but that's not the question the question is why is this particular debt the owner i'm sorry your honor i forgot to mention that this particular debt has been to enforce this obligation state either standing in the shoes of a third party creditor that wasn't party to the divorce or some not undefinable right to enforce a decree that didn't give her anything so she's here asking for a claim that was never given either in the divorce court or now and not as part of the bankruptcy estate and she should not be granted the ability to overturn clear bankruptcy court ju you should sit right here obligations under the divorce decree the non dischargeable divorce decree to sell the house and pay the joint debt the bankruptcy court had no subject matter jurisdiction under rooker feltman  reallocate property to the debtor was the loser he was kiddish the the debtor the loser yes he was because in the divorce proceedings he asked that it was a two day trial he asked the family court to award him title to the house the family court specifically refused to do that saying that he didn't have sufficient cash flow to retain the house and and pay off the joint debt as required and  to pay off the joint debt as the decree ultimately entitled him to do he also lost on the issue that the op of the could all shop location the construction loan was in fact a debt as opposed to a gift as he maintained the family court rejected that argument ordered him to not online though as it was half fifty fifty ultimately but he had asked that he be awarded the house completely the family court rejected that request ordered the proper parties to sell the house and to use the proceeds to pay joint marital debt the debtor did not get the relief he asked for in family court therefore he's a state court loser which satisfies the first album in a book or felt what's your strongest case for ripper feldman i said you said  callahan and to brooks both of which seem to me quite distinguishable and that one sought the direct modification of a direct divorce decree they both did one in citing federal law and the other citing the vermont homestead exemption so as in directly seeking modification of divorce decree here that isn't really happening i don't think i think the answer to your question your honor is that the the  definition of a of a transfer or settlement under a four month family law is extremely broad too and it it covers any reallocation of either marital assets or marital debt  the facts of the of an award are different in each and every case here the court ordered the parties to sell the marital residence and use the proceeds to a joint marital debt that is a transfer for family court purposes which it isn't doesn't argument with bankruptcy doesn't your argument then suggest that any divorce decree because they all involve property is not can't be the subject of any subsequent bankruptcy because the divorce decree is going to be so blind in chapter seven debtors have no right to avoid their obligations under property settlements that's five twenty three a fifteen in chapter thirteen the super discharge of chapter thirteen allows debtors to rewrite their property settlement obligations i don't have the precise cite in mind but the debtor is not in chapter thirteen using chapter thirteen and chapter seven where his ability to avoid his property settlement obligations is prescribed and prohibited thank you we will