Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20147 Su m m ar y Cal endar
In the M a tter O f: A N N E M M C C L O S K E Y ; M IC H A E L AC R A IG D e b t o r s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- - CHRI S TOP HER J M CCL OSKEY A p p ell a n t v. ANNE MI RI AM M CC L OS KE Y ; MI CHA EL AC RA I G A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- c v- 2381
B ef ore S M ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e s o le is s u e p r o p e r l y b e fo r e th is co u r t in th is b a n k r u p tc ya p p e a l is w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcou rterred i n a f f i rm i n g t h e b an kru ptcy c ou rt ’ s c on cl u si on th a t a n a ttorn ey ’ s fee a w a rd w a s n ot d i sch a rg ea b l e in b a n k ru p tcy p u rsu a n t t o United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20147

Byl ette r date d J uly3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , wer equ es te d th at th e partie s f il e lett erb rie fs 1 addressingwhether the jud gm ent on appeal shoul d bevacated and reman ded toth e bankruptcycourt in light of the Texas C ourtof Appe als’ decision file d onApril 2, 2 009
. 2 11 U
. S. C
. § 523( a) ( 5)
. I n bankrupt c y appeal s, w e “ per f or m the s am e f

unct i on as di d the di st ri ctcourt : Fa ctf i n di n gs of

t h e b an kru ptcy court are revi ew ed u n der a c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s s t a n d a r d a n d i s s u e s o f l a w a r e r e v i e wed d e novo .” Nati on w i d e Mu t . I

n s. Co. v. B err

ym an P rods. , 159 F. 3d 941, 943 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (ci tati on om i tted). T h i s cou rt review s a g ra n t of s u m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo . Evans v. C i ty of

Ho us t o n, 24 6 F. 3d 34 4, 34 7 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1)
. Sum m ar y j udg m e nt i s a ppr o pr i at e w he n “ t he di s c o ve r y and di s c l o s ur e m at e r i al s on f i l e , a nd a ny a ff i d a vi t s sho w t hat t her e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue as t o a ny m at er i alfac tand t hat th e m ov a n t i s en ti tl ed to a j u d gm en t a s a m a tter o f l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c). Ad o m e s tic s u p p o r t o b lig a tio n i s n o t d is c h a r g e a b le fr o m d e b t in b a n k r u p tc y . 1 1 U .S .C . § 5 2 3 (a )(5 ); see generall y In reH u d son , 107 F. 3d 355, 357 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) ( “Ac our torde r ed o bl i gat i on t o payat t or ney f ee s c harge d by a n at t o r ne y t hat r e pr e s e nt s a c hi l d’ s pa r e nt s i n c hi l d s upp o r tl i t i ga t i o n a ga i ns tt he deb t o r is n o n -d isch a rg e a b le.”) (cita tion om itted ); I n r e So nnt ag , 11 5 F
. A pp’ x 780, 6 8 1 -82 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 4 ) (un p u b l i sh ed ) (“A ttorn ey fee s aw a rd ed i n con n ection w i th a chi l d custody dis pu t e are f or t h e ben ef

i tof th e parti es’chi l dren
. . . . Th u s, s u c h d e b ts fa ll u n d e rth e e x c e p tio n to d is c h a r g e a b i lity o u tlin e d in 1 1 U .S .C . § 5 2 3 (a )(5 ).”). W h ile th is ca s e w a s p e n d in go n th is a p p e a l, th e T e x a s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls en t ered an opi n i on hol din g th a t “ [b ] ecau se t h i s i s not a case of chi l d su pp ort e n fo r c e m e n t, th e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in c h a r a c te r iz in gt h e a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s a s ch ild su p p ort. ” McC l oskey v. McC l oskey , N o. 14-06- 004 70-C V , at 4 ( T ex. C t . A pp . A pr. 2, 2 00 9)
. The a ppe l l at e c o ur tm o di f i e d t he t r i alc o ur tj udg m e ntt o “del et e a ny r e fe r e n c e to th e c h a r a c t e r iz a t io n o f a t t o r n e y ’s fe e s a s ‘a d d it io n a l c h il d s u p p o r t .’” I d. B ecau se the T exas C ou rtof A pp eal s hel d the t ri alcourt ’ s c h aract eri zati on 1N o. 08- 20147

Appellant McCloskey file d a letter b rief, buth e devotes most of th e b rief arguin g that th e debt has alre adybe en paid, that th e fe es are base d on an assignment th at is prohib ited, and that the Appelle es h ave viol ated the automatic stay. Th ese issues are outsi de our review o n this app eal. App elle esdidnotf il e al ette r b ri ef
. 3 o f t he a t t o r ne y’ s fe e a w ar d a s c hi l d s upp o r tt o b e i n e r r o r , w e v ac at e t he j u dg m en t an d r em an d t h i s cau se t o t h e ban kru ptcy c ou rtt o deter m i n e w h et h er t he at t or ney’ s fee aw ar d i s di sc harge abl e i n bankrupt c y. VA CA T ED a n d R EMANDE D.