Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03265/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

F LED 

United Scares Com:t of Appeals 

"fenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

J L - 1 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

In re: LEONARD (NMN) LOVE, SR., 

Debtor, 

BESSIE MAE LOVE, 

Appellant, 

v. 

LEONARD (NMN) LOVE, SR., 

Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-3265 

) (D.C. No. 89-4139-S) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming 

the bankruptcy court's determination that one-half of the monthly 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3265 Document: 010110128811 Date Filed: 07/01/1991 Page: 1 
payments which a state court ordered debtor to pay appellant, 

pursuant to a decree of divorce, was a debt dischargeable in 

bankruptcy. 11 u.s.c. § 523(a) exempts from discharge debts 

(5) to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, 

for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such 

spouse or child, in connection with a ... divorce decree ... , but not to the extent that-

(B) such debt includes a liability designated 

as alimony, maintenance, or support, 

unless such liability is actually in the 

nature of alimony, maintenance, or 

support. 

The bankruptcy court determined that one-half of the monthly 

payments, designated by the state court as maintenance, was 

actually a property settlement and, therefore, was not a debt 

exempted from discharge under section 523(a)(5)(B). 

The issue presented on appeal is whether the bankruptcy 

court's determination was clearly erroneous. See Goin v. Rives 

(In re Goin), 808 F.2d 1391, 1393 (10th Cir. 1987). Appellant 

bore the burden of establishing the nondischargeability of the 

debt. See Clark v. Clark (In re Clark), 105 Bankr. 753, 757-58 

(Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1989), aff'd, 113 Bankr. 797 (S.D. Ga. 1990). 

The question of whether an obligation established by a 

divorce decree is actually in the nature of support is a matter 

of federal, not state, law. Goin, 808 F.2d at 1392. In 

determining dischargeability under section 523(a)(5), federal 

courts must look beyond the divorce decree's characterization of 

the debt to the substance of the obligation, Goin, 808 F.2d at 

1392, and the intent of the state court in ordering the payments, 

Terrell v. Terrell (In re Terrell), 114 Bankr. 907, 913 (Bankr. 

W.D. Ky. 1989). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3265 Document: 010110128811 Date Filed: 07/01/1991 Page: 2 
Several factors are pertinent to the bankruptcy court's 

determination of whether the debt is support: (1) if 

the [decree] fails to provide explicitly for spousal 

support, the court may presume that the property 

settlement is intended for support if it appears under 

the circumstances that the spouse needs support; (2) 

when there are minor children and an imbalance of 

income, the payments are likely to be in the nature of 

support; (3) support or maintenance is indicated when 

the payments are made directly to the recipient and are 

paid in installments over a substantial period of time; 

and (4) an obligation that terminates on remarriage or 

death is indicative of ... support. 

Goin, 808 F.2d 1392-93. Review of the record indicates that the 

bankruptcy court's determination that only one-half of the monthly 

maintenance payments was actually in the nature of support was not 

clearly erroneous. 

Appellant further asserts that the bankruptcy court erred in 

considering appellant's need for support. This court has held 

that, in determining the dischargeability of a divorce obligation 

under section 523(a)(5), federal courts should not consider the 

need of the recipient at the time of the bankruptcy proceeding. 

Sylvester v. Sylvester, 865 F.2d 1164, 1166 (10th Cir. 1989). 

A requirement that the former spouse's present need for 

support or changed circumstances be analyzed in 

determining dischargeability finds no support in either 

the language or the legislative history of 

§ 523(a)(5). . . . [S]uch an inquiry would put federal 

courts in the position of modifying state matrimonial 

decrees. . . . We decline to make such an intrusion 

into the area of domestic relations absent a clearer 

congressional mandate to do so. 

In the instant case, however, the bankruptcy court did not 

evaluate appellant's need at the time of the bankruptcy 

proceeding, but rather considered the evidence of appellant's need 

for support at the time of the parties' divorce, in order to 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3265 Document: 010110128811 Date Filed: 07/01/1991 Page: 3 
determine the intent of the state court in ordering the monthly 

maintenance payments. The bankruptcy court's inquiry was 

appropriate. See Stranathan v. Stowell, 15 Bankr. 223, 227 

(Bankr. D. Neb. 198l)("consideration of the needs of the recipient 

spouse at the time of the divorce would be a major factor in 

determining whether an award was intended to 

maintenance or support or something else"). 

be alimony, 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3265 Document: 010110128811 Date Filed: 07/01/1991 Page: 4