Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almb-1_05-ap-01113/USCOURTS-almb-1_05-ap-01113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John David Joyner
Plaintiff
Sheree Lynn Joyner
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

In re Case No. 05-10832-DHW

 Chapter 7

JOHN DAVID JOYNER,

 Debtor.

_______________________________

SHEREE LYNN JOYNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Adv. Proc. No.05-1084-DHW

JOHN DAVID JOYNER,

Defendant.

________________________________

JOHN DAVID JOYNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Adv. Pro. No. 05-1113-DHW

SHEREE LYNN JOYNER,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sheree Lynn Joyner filed a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)

on August 3, 2005 to determine that a portion of her claim against John

David Joyner is nondischargeable. The action is designated Adv. Proc.

No. 05-1084-DHW.

Case 05-01113 Doc 9 Filed 11/04/05 Entered 11/04/05 08:45:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 6
1

For the purpose of clarity the court points out that John David Joyner

designated himself as plaintiff in the removed state court action (Adv. Proc.

No. 05-01113-DHW). This designation, of course, is in error. Sheree Lynn

Joyner was plaintiff in the State court action, and the removal of that action

to this court does not reverse the parties’ status as either plaintiff or

defendant. 

2

On September 22, 2005, John David Joyner removed to this court

an action filed by Sheree Lynn Joyner in the Superior Court of Turner

County, Georgia to determine the dischargeability of her claim under

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

1

 The removed action is designated Adv. Proc. No.

05-1113-DHW. 

Sheree Lynn Joyner filed a motion requesting the court to abstain

from hearing the removed action. For the reasons set forth below, the

motion is due to be granted.

Jurisdiction

This court’s jurisdiction in these adversary proceedings is derived

from 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and from the United States District Court for this

district’s general order referring all title 11 matters to this court.

Further, because complaints to determine the dischargeability of

particular debts are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I),

this court’s jurisdiction extends to the entry of a final order or

judgment. 

Discussion

The Removed State Court Action (Adv.Proc. No. 05-1113)

In the removed state court action, Sheree Lynn Joyner seeks a

determination that her claim against John David Joyner is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). The statute provides as

follows: 

Case 05-01113 Doc 9 Filed 11/04/05 Entered 11/04/05 08:45:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 6
3

(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b),

or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual

debtor from any debt—

(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 separation

agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of

record, determination made in accordance with State or

territorial law by a governmental unit, or property

settlement agreement, but not to the extent that—

(A) such debt is assigned to another entity,

voluntarily, by operation of law, or otherwise (other

than debts assigned pursuant to section 408(a)(3) of

the Social Security Act, or any such debt which has

been assigned to the Federal Government or to a

State or any political subdivision of such State); or

(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.

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

It is settled law in this jurisdiction that state courts have

concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts to determine whether

an obligation is in the nature of support for purposes of 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(a)(5). Cummings v. Cummings, 244 F.3d 1263, 1267 (11th Cir.

2001), Arrington v. Arrington (In re Arrington), Adv. Proc. No. 04-1305-

DHW (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2005).

Further, bankruptcy courts in this circuit have been admonished

to avoid unnecessary entanglement in state court domestic matters.

The Circuit Court of Appeals held that "[i]t is appropriate for bankruptcy

courts to avoid incursions into family law matters ‘out of consideration

of court economy, judicial restraint, and deference to our state court

Case 05-01113 Doc 9 Filed 11/04/05 Entered 11/04/05 08:45:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 6
4

brethren and their established expertise in such matters.’” Carver v.

Carver, 954 F.2d 1573, 1579 (11th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted), cert.

denied, 506 U.S. 986, 113 S. Ct. 496, 121 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1992). 

In the case sub judice the state court has held a number of

hearings concerning post-divorce disputes between these parties.

Therefore, in addition to the state court’s established judicial expertise

in domestic matters, the state court is familiar with this selfsame case.

The state court is better able to determine the meaning of its own

orders (that is, what portion of Sheree Lynn Joyner’s claim is actually

in the nature of support and maintenance). Deference to and comity

for the state court in this matter is the preferred course. 

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), this court will

abstain from hearing the removed state court action (Adv. Proc. No. 05-

1113), and the same will be remanded to the Superior Court of Turner

County, Georgia.

The argument made by John David Joyner in opposition to

abstention and remand is not persuasive. He contends that he cannot

receive a fair and impartial hearing in the state court due to the bias or

impartiality of the state court judge. 

First, other than rulings in favor of his former spouse, John David

Joyner offers no other evidence to substantiate his claim of bias or

impartiality. Second and more importantly, John David Joyner may

move for recusal of the state court judge, and if unsuccessful, may

appeal any adverse judgment.

The § 523(a)(15) Claim (Adv.Proc. No. 05-1084)

In the action filed originally in this court, Sheree Lynn Joyner

seeks a determination that debts owed to her by John David Joyner

which are not in the nature of support and maintenance are

nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The statute

Case 05-01113 Doc 9 Filed 11/04/05 Entered 11/04/05 08:45:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 6
5

provides as follows:

(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b),

or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual

debtor from any debt— 

(15) not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is

incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or

separation or in connection with a separation agreement,

divorce decree or other order of a court of record, a

determination made in accordance with State or

territorial law by governmental unit unless— 

(A) the debtor does not have the ability to pay such

debt from income or property of the debtor not

reasonably necessary to be expended for the

maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent

of the debtor and, if the debtor is engaged in

business, for the payment of expenditures necessary

for the continuation, preservation, and operation of

such business; or

(B) discharging such debt would result in a benefit to

the debtor that outweighs the detrimental

consequences to a spouse, former spouse, or child of

the debtor.

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Unlike the concurrent jurisdiction shared with state courts on

claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), the bankruptcy court has exclusive

jurisdiction of claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). Renfrow v. Draper,

232 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2000); Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 226

(6th Cir. 1981) (based on former version of § 523(c); Hester v. Daniel (In

re Daniel), 290 B.R. 914, 922 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003); Schorr v. Schorr

(In re Schorr), 299 B.R. 97, 106 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2003). 

Therefore, all proceedings in Adv. Proc. No. 05-1084 will be

Case 05-01113 Doc 9 Filed 11/04/05 Entered 11/04/05 08:45:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 6
6

suspended in this court until the parties advise that the § 523(a)(5)

action has been concluded in state court. The court will then restore

Adv. Proc. No. 05-1084 to its active calendar and determine whether

any remaining debt owed by John David Joyner to Sheree Lynn Joyner

is dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons the motion to abstain in Adv. Proc. No.

05-1113 will be granted, and the proceeding will be remanded to the

Superior Court of Turner County, Georgia. Further, all proceedings in

Adv. Proc. No. 05-1084 will be suspended pending the conclusion of the

state court action. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 9021, an order consistent with

this memorandum opinion will enter separately.

Done this the 3rd day of November, 2005.

/s/ Dwight H. Williams, Jr.

United States Bankruptcy Judge

c: C. H. Espy, Jr., Attorney for John David Joyner

 Patrick S. Flynn, Attorney for Sheree Lynn Joyner

Case 05-01113 Doc 9 Filed 11/04/05 Entered 11/04/05 08:45:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 6