broad ranging impact on the protections afforded to a debtor in bankruptcy court the overall scheme of bankruptcy is to protect a debtor from all kinds of harassment and all kinds of sort of to protect in this case a debtor from being burdened by actions which take place outside of the bankruptcy court there without the supervision of bankruptcy court so what happened here is when m a matter that's of the record at this point what we know in the record is that ms smith scheduled the capital one debt and that the party stipulated that mr smith daniel had a capital one debt and which both parties could be held liable because it was a marital debt interest incurred entirely during the wisconsin strikes again and it's unique statues with regard to community property and where well the wisconsin community property statutes as much as they are understood to be beneficial to debtors are actually primarily intended to benefit creditors and that's partially what's a kind of this lawsuit probably wouldn't arise risen in illinois or indiana in place because of the stay correct well can be executed against any property c m it could not be executed against property miss smith own sets correct but ms smith could still be burdened by the existence of the judgment itself the judgment itself gives the creditor the right to engage in supplementary examinations of a debt or to compel ms smith to come in answer questions about mr smith assets under the courtyard condominium versus draper case so right there she was faced with the prospect of being dragged down to a court commissioner's office and forced to answer questions and provide documentation that otherwise was beyond the reach of the creditor absent going through a bankruptcy two thousand and four examination which would be supervised by the exactly say what was in the mind of bankruptcy counsel at that i was not the the bankruptcy lawyer we came in at the appeal but when you read the explanation for are when to schedule a code at her and when not to schedule code out are there some language in there that appears to say you do not list a code out or if there are a husband and i to be honest the fair first time i read that through i read it as you would not need to list daniel smith and it was until i read through a second time just to make sure that i realized no under the facts of this case you probably should have in any way that schedule h somehow misled them and i think what was going on here was capital one and common law firm expressly did not want to bring up the code other issue i wanted to see this as an ambush because section thirteen  one allows for an orderly resolution of this claim so with capital one and cone saying we don't think this is the same batch that daniel as the one karen scheduled there with him saying we don't think this is in any way affected by the the bankruptcy code makes very clear that there's a way around that you file a motion for relief from stay you prove that one of the three conditions is an act either daniel is the primary or it's not going to be paid in the court shall grant relief from stay so upon that hearing the bankruptcy judge is going to say well if your right capital one i shall grant relief from stay then there is no question of ambushing the smith there's no question of placing undue pressure on her and it does allow for miss smith to then amend her claims to provide for payment of that to avoid in terms of that pressure has any of that happened it has not yet but the bigger chico doesn't require you to take further agree just action before the implicated and i do want to know edition of the supplemental examination the other thing that creditors can do once they get a judgment wisconsin is going to execution against property in the execution of his property the sheriff's deputy is going to go to the smith's house we're going to go inside and he's going to seize any personal property he sees that's not exempt from the exemption asked be claimed by the debtor only after seizure which is what really happened here is mr smith is at risk of being dragged through a court commissioner's office as i mentioned by court order punishable by contempt of a state court or of having armed deputies come into our house why would that parent the stay at capital one depart if they're not taking her property or threatening ms smith it wouldn't necessarily automat by only the state if the deputy comes in and he could ask ms smith is this yours or daniels if she says it's daniels he can take it and there's arguably no violation of the state but i think we can all agree that it appears to be in tremendous imposition on a debtor in bankruptcy to have a deputy walking around with a writ of execution signed by a state court in her house and putting the burden on the debtor miss smith to explain or know what might be individual property and explain or know what might be exempt from seizure and and that's exactly what the code under city is designed to avoid the again we go back to there's a process for this that capital one did not invoke in any way so they only come after the fact and say well we think after the fact this was in fact protected by the code interstate i think to the extent that you're looking at how to interpret the bankruptcy code one of the issues we have is that the bankruptcy code is very clear and what is a debt of the debtor a that this would happen because when you talk about a consumer debt of the debtor under the code under state got these three factors there's a debtor over money there's the code that are owed the money is a joint credit and all of those are clearly met here there's not even an argument that there can't be capital one in cologne have to stretch the meaning of wisconsin law simply to argue that karen smith is not a coder there you have because they weren't seeking a claim against her that she couldn't be a coed at her but under wisconsin much very clear that since wisconsin became a state and maybe this is what the justice was going to get spouses have been responsible for their deaths and when you look at the st mary's versus brody case with the wisconsin courts have said this is responsibilit bills and as the bucks death case made clear the duty of support goes to anything that might arguably necessary for the spouse given their position and so here are you know there's a credit card as opposed to a medical bill is a nonstarter wisconsin courts wisconsin doesn't make this kind of stink sions the question is is it incurred as part of a duty of support for the family is there any evidence of that in the records no the party stipulated below that it was simply a credit card that was incurred for personal family or household reasons so to the extent that there's a question about whether this was a support or nine necessary item the court would be better off remanding back for an evidentiary hearing or trial on that matter let me ask you one thing where did you raise the doctrine of necessaries either in the bankruptcy or district courts the doctrine of necessary was not raised or discussed in the bankruptcy court it was not discussed in the briefing to the district court because it wasn't until the judge made his ruling that the idea of whether this was necessary to became something that was at issue the judge held that i think look at my notes here the judge held that there was no personal liability for its part and that was an argument that capital one has argued to that's not the stipulated facts so the judge made a ruling that there was no personal liability before that no one would argue that net made it necessary to explain to this court why the personal liability arises just if i make complete the answer very briefly the doctrine of necessar carries through two seven six two six five five as well explained by the brody case it was codified under seven sixty five or one which broadened out the scope of the statute to include both husband and wife and then the manner in which courts are to interpret what claims may be made was separated under seven sixty six five five so this isn't as though there are soon to separate parallel paths of law they're essentially one branching doctrine in wisconsin from the co debtor in this case the debtor has no such personal liability the debtors interesting community or marital property even though it can be used to satisfy the debt of an incurring spouse does not equate to personal liability the difference between actual personal liability and a mere property interest even when that interest can be subject to foreclosure on someone else's debt is fundamental in bankruptcy proceedings and outside of bankruptcy proceedings that there is a difference between actual personal liability and the debtor which they separate defined term within the code though instructive there really is no need to assess legislative history in the underlying purpose behind this your prey's the simple fact is that congress chose not to purposefully use the broad phrases claim against the dead despite using that phrase and that defined term in the code twenty other times in the bankruptcy code further and perhaps even more importantly to this the facts congress also chose not to include the defined term community actual person y ability and liability a property or a property interest in a community property situation one example is that of a grant of a security interest it's fundamental in both bankruptcy and non bankruptcy law the one who simply pledges property in support of another's obligation risks losing title or possession of the collateral pledged in the event of the actual obligate words default but the pledge or of the property cannot be held to be personally liable on the debt for its deficiency or otherwise for instance a mortgage in which there are two persons on a mortgage but only one on the note certainly the mortgage property can be foreclosed upon in the event of the fall but only the individual that executed the note actually has personal liability only that this is fundamental both inside and outside banks will be now the appellant asserts that the doctor necessaries creates the requisite personal liability now while we disagree with that argument as a matter of law there's no reason to assess it in this of waiver which is much more fundamental to this case the dead are way to argument to assert that she has personal life building which she failed to schedule capital one and her husband as a coder both in her schedules and her statement  financial affairs those two documents both state that if you believe there is a code and in particular state that if you are married and in a community property state specifically this wisconsin that the debtor must check the box of the co debtor those were not checked not only were those not checked when the schedule statement financial affairs were filed they were subsequently amended and still not checked she clearly never believed that she had personal liability on that debt and in any event has waived the opportunity to assert that now the court's confirmation order confirming her chapter thirteen plan confirmed a plan in which the debtor did not include capital one as a and then a confirmation order was entered thereby stopping any assertion that there is personal liability on this debt and that argument that way for its part interestingly capital one has also waived any right to assert personal liability against the debtor under the doctrine of necessaries or otherwise capital one did not fall a claim on this debt going to your honor's question earlier there were two alleged couple when debts listed by the debtor in her schedules or schedule  again neither listing the code or capital one pile the claim on that kohl's account that is an account that without dispute she is personally liable on that claims included in the plan as it should be confirmation order prevents and actually all it stops capital one from ever starting any personal liability against the debtor on that debt under any theory doctoring necessar both parties have waived the right to assert that the debtor bears personal responsibility therefore the doctor in this series is in a place again we disagree with the debtors analysis of the the phrase claim against the debtor is defined in both the statutes and in the fall as kraft case it's repeatedly said to be including both personal claims against the debtor and claims against the debtors property it's eleven u s c one or two the capital one debt to be a debt incurred for personal family or household purposes which with smith is arguably liable on going to the doctor necessaries council estate a lot of claims about what could have or should have or did happen in the bankruptcy but the bottom line remains if they believed this debt was not covered by the schedules they have the option of filing a motion for relief from stay in upon a convincing the bankruptcy court of that that makes the court was mandatorily required to do so they opted for the riskiest possible path and the bankruptcy code makes clear that to protect the debtor you should not allow undue pressure placed on the district court care fraser says perhaps miss smith would prefer that her husband not be sued again without respect a district court i think that's a cavalier attitude towards how debtors look at lawsuits filed against their husbands what we have here is an admittedly consumer debt a debt that admittedly this myth can be held liable for that the creditor didn't bother to seek any permission from the bankruptcy court for clarification they charged ahead and now the bankruptcy courts conclusion is consistent with the plain reading of the law and with the way wisconsin's courts have always interpreted this marital property i