# U n i t e d S t at e s B an k r u pt cy A ppe l l at e P an e l

F or t he E i g ht h C i rc u i t

___________________________

N o. 20- 6007

___________________________

I n r e: L ewi s E

. A m

os

Debtor

.

_ _________________________

N o. 20- 6015

___________________________

I n r e: L ewi s E

. A m

os

Debtor

.

___________________________

L ewi s E

. A m

os ,

Debtor
– A

ppellant,

v

.

Robi n L

. Car

pen t er f /k/a Robi n A m

o s , an d F l es n er Wen

tzel l

, L L C

Cr editor s

- A ppellees

____________

A p peal s f r om Un i ted S tates B an

kr u ptcy Cou r t

f or th e E as ter

n Di s tr i ct of

M i ss ou r i
– S t. L ou i s

____________S u bm i tted: D ecem

ber 7, 2020

F i l ed: F ebr

u ar y 1, 2021

____________

B ef or e S H ODE E N, D OW an d S A NB E RG, B an

kr u p tcy J u dg es

.

S H ODE E N, B an

kr u ptcy J u d g e.

L ewi s A m

os appeal s th e B an

kr u ptcy Cou r t’ s 1 en tr y of s u m m ar y ju d g m en

t i n
f av or of F l es n er Wen

tzel

, L L C, an d con f

i r m ati o n o f h i s S i x th A m en ded Ch apter 1 3

P l an

. F or th e r eas on s th at f ol l ow, we af

f i r m

.

BACK G RO U ND F ACTS

T h e f ol l owi n g f

acts ar e u

n d i s pu ted bas ed u

p on th e par t ie s ’ s ti

pu l ati on an d

ex h i bi ts

.

I n Decem b er 2 0 1 1 L ewi s an d Robi n A m os obtai n ed a di v or ce. B as ed u pon
th e ev i den ce an d appl i ca b l e l aw th e di s s ol u ti on ju dg m en

t en ter ed by th e state cou

r t

or der ed L ewi s A m

os to pay Robi n A m

os ( h er ei n af

t e r “ C a r pen ter ”) m on t h l y ch i l d

s u ppor t of $529 f

or t h e cou pl e’ s f i v e ch i l dr en

. L es s th an a ye a r l a ter

, A m os f i l ed a

M oti on to M o di f

y Ju dg em en

t an d Decr ee of Di s sol u

ti on s e e k i n g a r edu cti on i n t h e

am ou n t of h i s ch i l d s u

ppor t du e t o a d e c r e a s e i n h i s i n com e, an d a ch an g e i n t h e

r es id e n t i al cu s tody an d v i s i tati on ar r an g em en ts

. Car pen ter cou n ter ed th i s m

oti on by al l eg i n g th at both of th e par ti es ’ i n com es h ad ch an g ed, t he ch i l d r en ’ s ex pen s es
ha d i n cr eas ed an d A m

o s was n ot ex er ci s i n g h i s v i s i t ati on r i g h ts

. T h es e f

ilings

tr i g g er ed m

u l ti pl e di s pu t es between th e par

t i es th at r es u l ted i n l i ti g ati on s pan n ing

f i v e y ear s

. 2 S u

b s tan t i al ev i den ce w as s u

ppl i ed to th e tr i al cou

r t i n su ppor t of t h e

par t i es ’ r es pecti v e al l eg ati on s

.

1 T h e H on or abl e K ath

y S u r r att- S tates

, Un i t ed S tates B an kr u ptcy J u dg e f

or th e E as ter n Di str i ct of M i s s ou

r i

.

2 T h e d etai l s of t

h e m u l ti pl e f i l i n g s i n th e s t ate cou

r t ar e s et f or th i n t h e J oi n t F act S ti pu l ati on

.

2T h e s tate cou r t’ s r ev i ew of th e ev i den ce r es u l ted i n a F ind ing an d J u dg m en t

of M odi f i cati on t h at i n cr eas ed A m

os ’ m on th l y ch i l d s u

p por t obl i g ati on an d g av e

Car pen ter s ol e cu s tody of th e ch i l dr en

. T h e cou r t al s o or d er ed h i m to pay on e- h al f

of Car p e nt e r ’ s attor

n ey 3 f ees am ou

n ti n g t o $17, 7 93. 91. A m os appeal ed t

h i s

ou t com e f o cu s i n g on th e t

r i al cou r t’ s i n com e cal cu l atio n an al y s i s

. F i n di n g n o

er r or , t h e M i s s ou

r i Cou r t of A ppeal s af f i r m e d t he t r i al cou

r t ’ s or der i n i ts en

ti r ety

. T h e s t a t e c o u

r t al s o i m pos ed f ees i n two o th er m atter s. A ttor n ey f ees i n t h e

am ou n t o f $4, 547. 00 wer e as s es s ed r el ated t o a Wr i t of Ha b e a s C o r pu s an d M oti on
f or F am i l y A cces s f

i l ed by Car

pen ter du e to A m

os ’ i n ter f er en ce wi th cu s tody o f

on e of t h e cou p l e ’ s m inor ch i l d

r en

. I n an acti on to S et A s i de T r an sf er an d M oti on
f or Con t em pt, th e s tate cou

r t con cl u ded A m

os h ad wi l l f

u l l y r ef u s ed to p a y ch i l d

s u ppor t as or der ed an d r equ i r ed h i m to pay $9, 000 i n attor n ey f ees

.

A m os f i l ed a ch apter 1 3 ban

kr u ptcy peti t i on on October 12, 2 017. I n h i s
f i l i n g s , th e attor

n ey f ees wer e i den

ti f i ed as g en er al u

n s ecu r ed cl ai m s

. F l es n er f

i l ed

thr e e p r o o f

s of cl ai m total i n g $31, 740. 90 f or attor n ey f ees th e s tate cou

r t or der ed

A m os to pay , pl

u s i nt e r e s t

. E ach of th es e cl ai m s was ch ar acter i zed as dom es ti c

s up p or t o bl i g ati on s , to wh i ch A m os o bjected. F l es n er al so f i l ed an adv er s ar

y

pr oceedi n g to deter

m i n e th e di s ch ar g eabi l i ty of t h e attor n ey f ees , wh i ch A m

os

con tes ted.

T h e par ti es f ile d cr os s

- m

oti on s f o r s u m m ar y ju d g m en

t i n th e adv er s ar

y

pr oceedi n g th at wer e s u ppor ted by th ei r joi n

t s ti pu l ati on of f

acts a nd r es pecti v e

ex h i bi ts

. B as ed u

pon a d etai l ed an al y s is o f t hat r ecor d th e ban kr u p tcy cou r t

deter m i n ed th at t

h e attor n ey f ees owed t o F l es n er qu al i f i e d as dom

es ti c s u ppor t

obl i g ati on s an d en

ter ed s u m m a r y j ud gm

en t i n i t s f av or f o r th e f u l l am ou n t of i ts

cl ai m s

. A s a r es u l t o f th i s ou tcom e, A m os was d i r ected t o f

ile a pl an th at pr oper l y

3 Car p en ter was r epr es en

ted by th e f

i r m F l es n er Wen

tzel

, L L C ( “ F l es n er ”)

.

3tr eated pay

m en t of t h e attor n ey f e e c la im s as dom

es ti c s u ppor t obl i g ati on s

. A

S i x th A m en ded P l an , was con f i r m ed ov er A m

os ’ objecti on

. 4

T h i s appeal f

o l l owed. T aken t og eth er , th e i s s u es r ai s ed by A m o s in his

N o t i ce of A

ppeal r es u l t i n a s ol e qu es ti on : wh eth er th e u n di s pu ted f acts es t a b lis h

th at th e attor

n ey f ees owed to F l es n er con s ti tu te dom es ti c s up p o r t obl i g ati on s

u n der th e ban

kr u ptcy code.

S TANDARD O F REVI EW

A ban kr u ptcy cou r t' s g r an t of s u m m ar y ju dg m en

t i s r ev i ewed de novo

. M w es igw a v. DA P

, I nc. , 637 F

. 3d 884, 88 7 ( 8th Ci r

. 2011) ( ci ti n g A nder s on v.

Dur h am D & M

, L

. L

. C.

, 606 F

. 3d 513, 518 ( 8th Cir

. 2 0 1 0 ) )

. We wi l l af f i r m i f

“ th er e is no ge nui n e d i s pu te as to an

y m ater i al f

act an d th e m

o v an t i s en ti tl ed to ju dg m en t as a m atter of l aw. ” F ed. R. Ci v

. P

. 5 6 ( a )

. Any bas i s f ou n d i n th e r ecor d

m ay s u ppor t o u r con cl u si on

. Seaver v. New B uffalo A uto Sales

, L L C ( I n r e
Hecker )

, 459 B

. R. 6, 11 ( B

. A. P

. 8th Ci r

. 2011) ; Schoelch v. M itchell

, 625 F

. 3 d
1041, 1046 ( 8 th Ci r

. 2010)

. H er e w e r ev i ew de novo wh eth er t h e b a nk r u ptcy

cou r t' s con c l us io n s i n

ter pr eti n g th e r el ev an

t statu tes an d appl y i n g t

h em to t h e

u n di s pu ted f act s is c or

r ect. F is ette v. Keller (

I n r e F is ette)

, 455 B .R. 177, 180
( B .A

. P

. 8th Ci r

. 2011) ; Checkett v. Sutton ( I n r e Sutton)

, 3 65 B

. R. 900, 904 ( B

. A

. P

. 8th Ci r

. 2007)

. T h i s s am e s tan dar d of r ev i ew i s appl i cabl e to pl an con f i r m ati on
is s u es

. W

egner v. Gr unew

aldt

, 821 F .2d 1317, 1320 ( 8th Ci r

. 1987) ; I n r e

M cI ntos h

, 491 B. R

. 9 0 5

, 910 ( B

. A

. P

. 8th Ci r

. 2013) ; F or bes v. F

o r bes ( I n r e

F or bes )

, 215 B

. R. 183, 187 ( B .A

. P

. 8th Ci r

. 1997)

.

4 T o pr es er

v e h i s r i g h

t to appeal con f

i r m ati on of t

h e pl an A m

os f i l ed an objecti on
ag ai n al l eg i n g th e am o u

n ts di d n ot q

u al i f y f or t r eatm en t as a dom

es ti c s u ppor t obl i g ati on s

. See Z

ahn v. F ink ( I n r e Z ahn)

, 526 F

. 3 d 1140 ( 8th Ci r

. 2008)

.

4DI S CUS S I O N

T h e deter m i n ati on of wh eth e r a debt i s a d om es t i c s u ppor t obl i g ati on , as th at

ter m i s def i n ed i n th e ban

kr u ptcy code, is s t r i ctl y a qu es ti on of f eder al l aw. I

n r e

W illiams

, 703 F

. 2d 1055, 1 056 ( 8 th Ci r

. 1983)

. T h e ban kr u ptcy c o d e d e f

in es
dom es ti c s u ppor t obl i g a t ion s , i n par

t, as al i m

on y , m ai n ten an ce or ch i l d s u

ppor t

or der ed by a cou

r t of r ecor d to a f

or m er s pou s e , ch i l d o r ch i l d’ s par en t

. 11 U. S

. C.

S 1 01( 14A )

. S u ch debts ar e ex cepted f r om di s ch ar g e u

n der 11 U

. S

. C

. § 5 23( a) ( 5)

an d ar e en

ti tl ed to pr i o r i t

y paym e nt b e f

o r e m os t oth er cr edi tor cl ai m s pu r s u an t to 1 1

U. S

. C. §507( a) ( 1 )

. L abel s as s igne d by th e s tate cou r t ar e n ot b i n di n g on a
ban kr u ptcy cou r t “ [ w ] h en deci di n g wh eth er a deb t s ho uld be ch ar acter i zed as on e
f or s u ppor t

. . . t h e cr u ci al qu es ti on i s th e f

u n cti on th e awar d w a s inten ded t o s er v e. ”

P hegley v. P

hegley ( I n r e P hegley)

, 4 4 3 B .R. 154, 157 ( B

. A .P

. 8th Ci r

. 2011)
( ci ti n g A dams v. Z

ent z , 9 6 3 F

. 2 d 197, 200 ( 8th Ci r

. 1992) ) ; B oyle v. Donovan

, 724

F

. 2 d 6 81, 683 ( 8th Ci r

. 1 984) ( ci ti n g I n r e W illiam s , 703 F

. 2 d at 1057) ; Kr uger v.

E l lis ( I n r e E l lis

)

, 149 B

. R. 925, 927 ( B an kr

. E

. D. M o. 1 9 9 3 )

. A l i ber al

con s tr u cti o n g ov er

n s th e an al y s i s o f wh at con s ti tu tes s u ppor t to f u lf ill t h e
l eg i s l ati v e pu

r pos e of § 5 23( a) ( 5)

. I

n r e P hegley, 443 B

. R. at 158 ( “ pol i cy

. . . f av or s th e en f

or cem en t of f am i l i al obl i g ati on s ov er a f

r es h s tar t f or th e debtor

. . . ”)

.

B y s tatu te, M i s sou

r i l aw per m i ts f ees an d cos ts to b e awar d ed to cou n s el i n
dom es ti c l aw cas es u

n der cer tai n ci r cu

m s t an ces

. T h e r el ev an t s t a tu tes g i v e

au th or i ty to a cou

r t to: 1 ) o r d e r a par

t y t o pay r eas on abl e cos ts to t h e par t y

m ai nt a ining or def

en di n g a pr oceedi n g i n v ol v i n g di s s o l u

ti on of m

ar r i ag e an d

r el ated i s s u es , i n cl u di n g , bu t n ot l i m i ted to: ch i l d su

ppor t, cu s to d y , v i s i t ati on an d

pr oper t y di v i s i on ; an d 2 ) or der pay m en t of l eg al f

ees i n a pr oceedi n g wh e r e f ai l u r e

to pay ch i l d s u

ppor t i s w i th ou

t g ood cau s e

. I n an

y o f t h es e s cen ar i o s th e cou

r t m ay

or der am ou

n ts b e pai d di r ectl y to th e attor n ey wh o can th en en f

or ce th e or der i n
th ei r own n am e. R. S

. M o § 452. 355.

A m os r eas on s th at becau s e th e s tate cou r t di d n o t s p eci f

i cal l y i d e nt if

y t h e

M i s sou r i s tatu e i t r el i ed u

po n i n or der i n g th e attor n ey f ees th e awar d m

u s t be

5con s tr

u ed as pu n i s h m en t f or h i s l i ti g ati on con duc t

. T his ar g u m en t h as been r ejected

u n der f acts n ear l y i den

t i cal to th os e i n t

h i s appeal

. I

n r e T r entadue, 527 B

. R. 328,

330- 31 ( B an

kr

. E

. D

. Wi s

. 2015)

, af

f ' d s u b nom

. T

r entadue v. Gay

, 538 B

. R. 770 ( E

. D. Wi s

. 2 015)

, aff'

d s u b nom. I

n r e T r entadue

, 837 F .3d 743 ( 7th Ci r

. 2016)

. Wh i l e t h e ch i l dr e n' s m

oth er m ay be a better pr o v i der th an th e debtor

, taki n g on ex

pens ive cu s tody l i ti g ati o n wi l l i n v ar i abl y h av e an adv er s e
af f ect on th e ch i l dr en , both f i n an ci al l y an d em oti o n al l y

. T h e deb t o r

owes a d ut y to h i s ch i l dr en n ot to take on u n n eces s ar y l i t i g ati on
di r ected at th em , s o h e h as to pay f or i t wh en h e does

.

I n r e T r entadue, 527 B

. R. at 355; s e e a l s o L o c k w ood v. L ockw ood, 148 B

. R. 45, 4 8 ( B an kr

. E

. D. Wi s

. 1992) ( “ B oth econ om i c an d n o n econ om

i c f a c t o r s c a n be v i tal to

ch i l dr en ’ s i n

ter es ts

, an d s epar ati n g th es e f a c t or s i s n ot r eal i s t i c. ”)

. Con tr ar y to

A m os ’ pr em i s e th at th e ban

kr u p tcy cou r t f ai l ed to ev al u ate th e pur

p o s e an d f

u n cti on
of the a t tor

n ey f ees awar ded, i ts r

u l i n g s peci f

i cal l y addr es s ed an d den i ed a cl ai m
des cr i bed as dom

es ti c s u ppor t wh i ch Car

pen ter f i l ed f or $1, 500 i n f

e e s i m p os ed as a

s a nc t i on ag ai n st A m

o s f o r d i s cov er

y f ai l u r es

. T h e ban

kr u ptcy cou r t n ot on l y

con s i der ed A m

os ’ ar g u m en t th at th o s e attor

n ey ’ s f ees w er e i m

pos ed f or pu n i s h m en t

of h i s l i ti g ati on con du ct, i t ag r eed wi th h i m as to th at cl ai m

.

I n his b r ie f

, A m os s tates : “ [ t] h e 8 t h Ci r cu i t r equ i r es a ban

k r u ptcy cou r t to

con s i der th e f

i n an ci al di s pos i ti on o f th e par ti es i n th e con

tex t of th e awar d. ” H e
f u r th er con ten ds th e b an

kr u ptcy cou r t “ h ad an i n d e p en den

t du ty ” t o m ake a f

actu al

de t e r m i n ati on on th e f

i n an ci al con di ti on of th e par ti es

. A n d, f i n al l y , th at t

h e
ban kr u ptcy cou r t i n cor r ectl y an d ex cl u s i v el y r el i ed u pon th e s t ate cou

r t’ s
deter m i n at io ns

. T h es e ar g

u m en ts ar e n ot per s u as i v e an d l ack l eg al m er i t f or t h e
f ol l owi n g r eas on s.

F i r s t, th i s Ci r c uit h as actu al l y r ejected th e con cept th at a “ n eeds tes t” i s

n eces s ar y to deter

m i n e su ppor t obl i g ati on s i n ban

kr u ptcy

. Dr aper v. Dr a

per , 790

F

. 2d 52, 54 ( 8 t h Ci r

. 1986) qu oti n g I

n r e Har r ell

, 754 F

. 2d 9 02, 906 ( 11th Ci r

. 1985)

6( “ T h e statu

tor y l an g u ag e [ o f 11 U. S

. C. § 523( a) ( 5) ] s u gge s t s a s i m pl e i n qu i r y as to

wh eth er t he o b liga t i on can l eg i ti m atel y b e ch ar acter i zed as s u ppor t

. . . . T h e
l an g u ag e does n o t s u g g es t a pr eci s e i n qu i r y i n to f i n anc ia l ci r cu

m s tan ces to

deter m i n e pr eci s e l ev el s of n eed or s u p por t; n or do e s t he s tatu

tor y l an g u ag e

con tem p l ate an o n g oi n g as s es sm en t of n eed as ci r cu

m s tan ces ch an g e. ”)

.

S econ d, A

m os seeks to i m

pos e a du ty on th e ban

kr u ptcy cou r t t o enga ge i n

an i n d epen den

t deter m i n ati on of th e f

a c t s r el ated to th e s t ate cou r t’ s awar d of

attor n ey f ees

. S u ch acti on

i s n ot war

r an ted u n der th e pr o cedu

r e h e s el ected.

C r os s

- m otio ns f o r s um m a r y j ud gm e nt p r e s e nt p e c ulia r

pr obl em s

. T h e cou

r t m u s t con s i d e r each m

oti o n on th e r ecor d

pr ov i d ed an d m

u s t take car e n ot t o con f u s e i ts l i m

i ted r ol e i n

pas s i n g on s u ch a m

ot io n ( th at i s , to deter

m i n e wh eth er th e

m ov i n g par ty i s e nt it led to ju dg m en t as a m atter of l aw on th e

u n di s p ut e d m a t er i al f

acts ) wi th th e r ol e i t wou l d pl ay wer e th e

par ti es to s u bm i t t h ei r cas e f

or deci s i on o n a s ti

pu l ated r ecor d.

Cow ell v. Hale (

I n r e Hale)

, 289 B

. R

. 788, 792 ( B

. A

. P

. 1s t Ci r

. 2003)

. A cou r t’ s

r ol e i n th e con

t ex t of s u m m ar y ju dg m ent is n ot t o w ei g h ev i den ce to d eter m i n e t h e

tr u th of an as ser ti on , i n s tead i t i s on l y to deter m i ne w he t h er th er e i s a g en u i n e i s s u e
of m ater i al f

act r equ i r i n g deter

m i n ati on at t r ia l. A nder

s o n v. L iber ty L obby, I

nc. , 477 U. S

. 242, 248- 49 ( 1 986)

.

T h i r d, f am i l y l aw cas es ar e s peci f

i cal l y r es er

v ed to s tate, n ot f

eder al

, cou

r ts

f or deter m i n ati on

. S

i mms v. Simms

, 175 U

. S

. 162, 167 ( 1899) ; I n r e B ur r us , 136

U. S

. 586, 5 9 3

- 9 4 ( 1890) ( “ T h e wh ol e s u bject of th e dom

es ti c r el ati on s of h

u s ban d

an d wi f e, p a r e nt an d ch i l d, bel o n g s to th e l aws of th e s t ates

, an d n ot to th e l aws of

th e Un i ted S tates

. ”)

. I n A mos v. Car penter

, the s t a te cou

r t con cl u ded A m

os
del i ber atel y m an i pu l ated h i s i n com e an d as s ets to av oi d pay m en t o f c hild s u

ppor t.

A m os ’ own tes t i m

o n y con f ir m s h e wou l d r ath er be i n car cer ated th an m eet h i s ch i l d

s u ppor t obl i g ati on s

. I t al s o di d n ot f i n d A m os ’ i n com e i n f

or m ati on c r e d ibl e or

7con s i s ten

t. A m os cl ear l y di s ag r eed wi th th es e f i n di n g s an d n ow s eeks a di f f er en t

r es u l t u n der th e ban

kr u p t cy cou r t’ s con s i der ati on of th e s am e ev i den ce. “ [ A ]

f eder al d i str i ct cou

r t d oes n ot h av e s u

bject m atter ju r i s d i cti on ov er ch al l en g es to

s tate cou r t deci s i on s i n ju di ci al pr o c e e d ings

. ” S nider v. City of E

xcels ior Spr ings

, 154 F

. 3d 809, 811 ( 8th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 )

. T h e Rooker –F el dm an doctr i n e “ f

or ecl os es n ot

on l y s tr ai g h

tf or w ar d appeal s bu

t als o m o r e i n di r ect attem pts b y f eder al pl ai n

ti f f s to

u n der m i n e state cou

r t deci s i on s

. ” P

or tw o od v. Y oung ( I n r e P or tw ood)

, 308 B

. R.
351, 355 ( B

. A

. P

. 8th Ci r

. 2004)

.

C it ing A dams v. Z

entz f or s u p por t

, A m os m ai n tai n s th e ban

k r u ptcy cou r t

i n cor r ectl y appl i ed a per s e r

u l e th at al l attor

n ey ’ s f ees i n cu r r e d b y a par

ty en f or ci n g

or def en d i n g r i g ht s t o ch i l d s u ppor t p ay m en ts or cu s tody ar e d o m es t i c s u ppor t

obl i g ati on s

. 963 F

. 2d 197. A m os con s t r u es t h i s cas e m

u ch br oad e r t ha n i ts h ol di n g

per m i ts

. I n r each i n g a con cl u s i on th at th e a t t o r ne y f ees o wed by Z en

tz wer e n ot

dom es ti c s u ppor t o b l i g ati on s u

n der th e ban

k r u ptcy code, th e ban

kr u p tcy c o ur t i n
th at cas e r el i ed u

pon th e s tate cou

r t’ s “ con ti n u i n g f ocu s , n ot u

po n h o w t h e ch i l d’ s
wel f ar e was th

r eaten ed by h er l o s s o f con tact w i th h er n atu

r al f ath er , bu t r ath er

u pon ho w Ze nt z ’ s con du ct h ad i m pai r ed A dam ’ s abi l i ty to m ai n tai n a r el ati on s h i

p
wi th h i s dau g h

ter

. ” I d. at 200 ( ci tati o n s om i tted)

. I n A mos th e s t ate cou r t

r ecog n i zed th er e wer e di spu t es between th e par

ti es , bu t i t s f i n di n gs o f f

act ar e

r epl ete wi th i ns t a nc e s w her e A m os ’ con du ct di r ectl y ef

f ected th e wel l bei n g of t

h e

par ti es ’ ch i l dr en

. T h e or der al s o s peci f i cal l y s tated t

h e f acts d em on s tr a t e d a c ha n g e
i n ci r cu m s tan ces , w hic h r e q u i r ed m odi f i cati o n o f t

h e or i g i n al decr ee to bes t s er v e
th e i n ter es ts of th e ch i l dr en

.

A m ajor i ty o f cou

r t s ag r ee th at a t t o r ney f

ee awar ds r el ated to en f or ce or
def en d i s s u es i n

v ol v i n g ch i l d s u

ppor t, v i s i tati on or cu s tody th at ef f ect th e wel f

ar e of

th e ch i l dr en do qu al i f

y as dom es ti c s u

ppor t obl i g ati on s

. 5

5 S ee B aillar

geon v. Stacey (

I n r e Stacey)

, 164 B

. R. 210 ( B an kr

. D. N

. H

. 1994) ; I

n

r e P eter s , 1 33 B

. R. 291 ( S

. D. N. Y. 1991) ; Jones v. Her ber t ( I n r e Her ber t)

, 304

B

. R. 67 ( B an

kr

. E

. D. N. Y. 2 004) ; Sinton v. B laemir e ( I n r e B laemir e)

, 229 B

. R.

8I n it s r u l i n g , t h e ban kr u ptcy cou r t en g ag ed i n a s peci f

i c an d detai l ed an alys is

of th e u n di spu ted f acts an d l eg al au

th or i ty

. Upon ou

r de novo r ev i ew we i den ti f y

n o er r or i n th e con cl

u s i on th at th e attor

n ey f ee s im p o s e d on A m

os by th e s tate cou

r t

ar e dom e s t i c s up p or

t obl i g ati on s u

n der t h e ban kr u ptcy code an d ar e th er ef or e n ot

d is c h ar g eabl e pu

r s u an t to 1 1 U. S

. C. §523( a) ( 5 )

. B as ed u pon t h i s con cl us io n

con f i r m ati on of A m

os ’ S i x th A m en ded P l an t h at pr ov i ded f

or pr i or i ty t

r eatm en t of

F l es n er ’ s attor

n ey f ee cl ai m s as dom es ti c s u

ppor t obl i g ati on s was appr opr i ate.

A ccor di n g l y , we A F F I RM th e ban kr u ptcy cou r t’ s d eci s i on s

.

__________________

665 ( B an kr

. D. M d. 1999) ; I

n r e Huds on , 1 07 F

. 3 d 355 ( 5th Ci r

. 1997) ; Snider v. Snider ( I n re Snider

)

, 62 B

. R. 382 ( B C S

. D. T ex

. 1986) ; R ugier o v. D iNar do ( I n r e R ugier o)

, 502 F

. A

pp' x 436 ( 6th Ci r

. 2012) ; E den v. R ober t A

. Chaps ki, L t d

. , 405

F

. 3d 582 ( 7th Ci r

. 2005) ; R ehkow v. L ew is

, No. A Z

- 05- 1395- A M o S

, 2006 B an kr

. L E XI S 4870, ( B

. A

. P

. 9th Ci r

. A u g

. 17, 2006) ; Jones v. Jones ( I n r e Jones

)

, 9 F

. 3d
878 ( 10th Ci r

. 1993) ; I

n re L o w ther

, 321 F

. 3d 946 ( 10th Ci r

. 2002) ; W iggins v. W ils on ( I n r e W i ls on)

, 3 80 B

. R. 49 ( B an

kr

. M. D. F l a. 2006)

.

9