FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 15, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14321 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o s . 0 6 - 8 1 1 4 9 - CV - A SG & 9 6 - 3 3 4 1 3 BK C- SH I n R e : L A W R E N C E B . C U M M I N G S , D e b t o r . __________________________________________________ L A W R E N C E B . C U M M I N G S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S U S A N C U M M I N G S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 15, 2008)2

B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L a w r e nc e B . C um m i ngs ( “ L a w r e nc e ” ) , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s a f

f irm a n c e o f

th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s o r d e r s d e te rm in in g th a t h is obl i ga t i ons unde ras t a t e c ourtdi vor c e de c r e e a r e pa r t i a l l y di s c ha r ge abl e a nd p a rt i a l l y n o n - d i s c h a r g e ab l e , a n d d e n y i n g r e c u s a l o f th e b a n k ru p t c y j u d g e . On appeal , L aw re nce a rgues that(1) the bank rupt cycourterre d i n fi nd i ng thati tw as barr ed by the “ l aw of the ca se ” doctri ne fr om i nd ependent l y r edet erm i ni ng w hat port i on, i f

a ny , of the unde r l y i ng s t a t e di vor c e c our tj udgm e ntw a s i nt e nde d t o be i n the na tur e of

“ s upport ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of 11 U . S . C . § 523( a ) ( 5) ; a nd ( 2) the b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e ab u s e d h is d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g L a w r e n c e ’s m o tio n f o rr e c u s a l. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d and the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f s , w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or a n d A F F I R M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D L a w r e n c e a n d S u s a n C u m m in g s ( “S u s a n ” ) w e r e d iv o r c e d in 1 9 9 6 . T h e s ta te d iv o r c e c o u rt a w a r d e d S u s a n $ 6 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 a s a n “e q u itab le d is tr ib u tio n ,” p a y ab le in three annu al l um p sum i nst al l m ent s of $2, 10 0, 00 0 eac h, bu tdi d n oti nd i ca t e w hat p o rt i o n o f th e aw ard , i f an y, w as i n t en d ed as su p p o rt . C u m m i n g s v . C u m m i n g s, 2 4 4 F . 3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 4 -6 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ C u m m i n g s I”). S h o rt l y b efo re th e fi rst3

in s ta llm e n t w a s d u e , L a w r e n c e f ile d ab a n k ru p tc y p e titio n s e e k in g to d is c h a r g e h is obl i ga t i on t o S us a n unde rthe di vor c e de c r e e . T he bankrupt c y c our ti ni t i a l l y f ound thatthe ent i re aw ar d w as di sc hargeabl e a s aprop erty s ett l em ent , bu tw e vac at ed th a to r d e rd i s c h a r g i n g th e a war d o n ap p e a l . C u m m i n g s I a t1 2 6 7 . I n p a r t i c u l a r , we no t ed thatthe st at e di vo rc e c ou rthad con curr entj uri sdi ct i on w i th the bank rupt cy c o u rt to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e d iv o r c e o b lig a tio n w a s “in th e n a tu r e o f s u p p o r t” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

§ 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) , a n d w e ru le d th a t th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t s h o u ld a w a it the di vo rc e c ou rt ’ s c l ar i fi ca t i on of i t s i nt entre gardi ng the am ou ntof supp ort pr ovi de d i n i t s a w a r d. I d. O n r e m a n d , h o w e v e r , th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t e n te r e d a n o r d e rf in d in g th a t it ha d e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe c a s e a nd e nj oi ni ng S us a n f r om s e e ki ng a cl ar i fi ca t i on order f

rom the di vo rc e c ou rt . R 1-26 at3. S usan pet i t i on ed us for a w r it o f m a n d a m u s , w h ic h w e g r a n te d , d ir e c tin g th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t ( 1 ) to v a c a te i t s “ [ e ] xc l us i ve [

j ] ur i s di c t i on or de r , ” ( 2) nott o hi nde rS us a n “ f r om obt a i ni ng a c la r if ic a tio n f r o m th e s ta te d iv o r c e c o u r t a s to w h a t p o r tio n , if a n y , o f th e e q u itab le di s tr i but i on w a s i nt e nde d a s s uppor t , ” a nd ( 3) “ nott o s c he dul e f ur the rpr oc e e di ngs o n th e d is c h a r g e ab ility is s u e u n til [ S u s a n ] h a d h a d ar e a s o n ab le o p p o r tu n ity to ob t ai n cl ar i fi ca t i on fr om the [di vo rc e] court . Id. at3-4. T he di vo rc e c ou rtthen e n te r e d a n o r d e rc la r if

y in g th a t it in te n d e d th e f ir s t tw o lu m p s u m p a y m e n ts to4

s e rve a s s uppor t , butnotthe thi r d pa y m e nt . R 1- 26 a t4. L a w r e nc e appe a l e d the m e r i t s of tha tor de r , a nd the s t a t e appe l l a t e c our ta f f i rm e d w i thoutopi ni on the d iv o r c e c o u rt’s o r d e r . C u m m in g s v . C u m m in g s , 8 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 3 ( F la . 4 th D is t. C t . A pp . 20 02 ) ( t abl e) . T here af t er , base d o n the di vo rc e c ou rt ’ s c l ar i fi ca t i on order, the bank rupt cy courtfoun d that , the fi rs ttw o p ay m ent s w er e non di sc hargeabl e und er§ 5 23 (a )( 5), w h ile th e th ir d p a y m e n t w a s d is c h a r g e ab le . T h e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t r e f u s e d to co n si d er L aw ren ce’ s att em p tt o ch al l en g e th e d i v o rce co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g th atth e fi rst tw o pa y m e nt s w e r e i nt e nde d t o be i n the na tur e of s uppor t , f

i ndi ng tha tthe i s s ue w a s b a rr e d b y th e “la w o f th e c a s e ” d o c tr in e . A c c o r d io n F o ld e r1 - 1 1 - 4 a t 8 . L a w r e nc e appe a l e d the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s rul i ng, a nd the di s tr i c tc our ta f f i rm e d. M e a nw hi l e , L a w r e nc e a l s o ha d uns uc c e s s f ul l y m ove d t o r e c us e the ba nkrupt c y j udge f

orbi a s , ba s e d on tw o s pe c i f i c s t a t e m e nt s . T he f

i r s ts t a t e m e nt appe a r e d w i thi n af

ootnot e of

a n or de rde ny i ng S us a n’ s e m e r ge nc y m ot i on f or f in a n c ia l s u p p o rt; th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e c o m p a r e d L a w r e n c e ’s c o m f o r tab le lif e s ty le , b a s e d o n h is ap p a r e n t ab ility to p a y f o rth e s e rv ic e s o f

ap r e s tig io u s S o u th F l or i dal a w f

i rm , t o S us a n’ s “ de pl or abl e ” l i vi ng c ondi t i ons a nd pr o s e s t a tus . R 1- 2 6 at 4 -5 . T h e s ec o n d statem en t w as m ad e d u rin g a 2 0 0 1 h ea rin g in S u sa n ’s se para t e bankrup t cyproceedi ng s upo n the confi rm at i on of S usan’ s ow n b ankrup t cy5

r e o r g an iz a tio n p la n ; th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e e x p r e s s e d “h o p e th a t M s . C u m m in g s is s u c c e s s f u l in h e rp u r s u it a s f

a ra s th e r e c o v e ry o f

m o n e y s o w e d to h e r . I s in c e r e ly m e a n tha t . ” I d. a t5. T he ba nkrupt c y c our tde ni e d the m ot i on f orr e c us a l , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourthe l d tha tthe ba nkrupt c y c our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on because the tw o chal l enged com m ent s ( 1) di d n otst em fr om an extra j ud i ci al source , (2) w er e “ on l y tw o fai rl y i nn ocuo us st at em ent s” m ade over the course of approx i m at el y t en ye ar s of l egal proceedi ng s, and (3) w ou l d n otl ea d “a n y r e a s o n ab ly o b

je c tiv e la y p e r s o n ” to d o u b t th e b a n k rup tc y ju d g e ’s im p a r tia lity . I d. a t15- 16. L a w r e nc e , w ho ha d be e n r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l thr oughoutthe b a n k ru p tc y a n d d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o c e e d in g s , f ile d atim e ly ap p e a l p r o s e . I I . DI S CUS S I ON F i r s t , L a w r e nc e a r gue s tha t , on r e m a nd f ol l ow i ng C um m i ngs I , ne i the rthe b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt n o rth e d iv o r c e c o u r t f o llo w e d o u r“c le a rg u id e lin e s ” to det erm i ne the ori gi nal i nt entof the di vo rc e c ou rtas t o w hatpo rt i on of the di vo rc e ju d g m e n t s h o u ld f

u n c tio n a s s u p p o r t. A p p e lla n t’s B r . a t 7 . L a w r e n c e a ls o a s s e rts tha tthe f i r s ttw o l um p s um i ns t a l l m e nt s t ot a l m or e tha n $4, 000, 000, w e l l ove rthe $8 , 00 0 p erm on th thatthe di vo rc e c ou rtfoun d thatS usan needed t o m ai nt ai n h er a c c us t om e d s t a nda r d of l i vi ng. I n l i ghtof

tha tdi s c r e pa nc y , L a w r e nc e m a i nt a i ns tha tthe di vor c e c ourt ’ s c l a r i f i c a t i on tha tthe f

i r s ttw o of

the thr e e l um p s umL awrencealso incorporates by ref erence his reply

brief to the district c ourt, in which he 1 argued that the ba

nkruptcy court wa s not prohibited from independently evaluating wha

t portion of the divorc e judgment was in the nature of suppor t beca use the divorc e cour

t never addre ssed the issue in the context of federal ba nkruptcy law. 6 paym ent s w er e i nt ended as s up po rtw as arbi trary . Id. In hi s r epl y bri ef , L aw re nce 1 ex p lain s th at h e is n o t try in g to “re- li ti g ate” an y iss u e, b u t rath er , h e w an ts “a c ourt ” t o c ons i de rf

orthe f i r s tt i m e hi s e vi de nc e tha tthe di vor c e c our t ’ s 2002 c l a r i f i c a t i on or de rdi d nota c c ur a t e l y r e f l e c ttha tc our t ’ s or i gi na l i nt e nti n i t s 1996 d iv o r c e d e c r e e . R e p ly B r . a t 1 . W e ha ve “

j ur i s di c t i on ove ra l l f

i na l or de r s of

adi s tr i c tc our te xe r c i s i ng appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on ove rba nkrupt c y c our tor de r s . ” I n r e P ugh, 158 F . 3d 530, 532 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) , ( c i t i n g 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 5 8 ( d ) ) . “ I n e x e r c i s i n g s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n , we re vi ew concl usi on s of l aw m ade by the di stri ctand b ankrup t cycourt s de nov o. ” Id. C l ai m prec l usi on appl i es t o an o rderor j ud gm entw hen fou r c on di t i on s are m e t : ( 1) “ the pr i orj udgm e ntm us tbe va l i d i n tha ti tw a s r e nde r e d by ac our tof com pet entj uri sdi ct i on and i n acc ordance w i th the re qu i re m ent s of due process ”; ( 2) “ the j udgm e ntm us tbe f i na l a nd on the m e r i t s ” ; ( 3) “ the r e m us tbe i de nt i ty of b o th p a rt i e s o rth e i rp r i v i e s ” ; a n d ( 4 ) “ th e l a t e rp r o c e e d i n g mu s ti n v o l v e th e s a me c au s e o f a c tio n a s in v o lv e d in th e e a r lie rp r o c e e d in g .” I n r e J u s tic e O a k s I I , L td ., 89 8 F . 2d 15 44 , 15 50 (11th C i r. 19 90 ). B y c on tra st , un der the cl osel y r el at ed do ctri ne of the “ l aw of the ca se , ” “ w hen a courtdeci des upo n a rul e of l aw , that7

de c i s i on s houl d c ont i nue t o gove rn the s a m e i s s ue s of s ubs e que nts t a ge s of

the s a m e c a s e . ” C hr i s t i a ns on v. C ol tI ndus . O pe r a t i ng C orp. , 486 U . S . 800, 815- 16, 10 8 S . C t . 21 66 , 21 77 (198 8) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). W e have expl ai ned the di ff er ence b etw een cl ai m p recl u si o n an d l aw o f th e case as fo l l o w s: [w ] hi l e the l aw of the ca se do es no tbar l i t i gat i on of i ss ues ‘ w hi ch m ig h t h a v e b e e n d e c id e d b u t w e r e n o t[ .]’ [ I ]t d o e s r e q u ir e ac o u r t to fol l ow w hathas bee n d ec i ded exp l i ci t l y, as w el l as by nece ss ary i m pl i c a t i on, i n a n e a r l i e rpr oc e e di ng. T he di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n l a w of the c a s e a nd c l a i m pr e c l us i on i s tha tthe f orm e rba r s r e l i t i ga t i on of l egal rul es w hi l e the l att erbars re l i t i gat i on of cl ai m s ( i . e. , l egal rul es ap p lie d to th e f

a c ts o f th e c a s e ) . I n a d d itio n , law o f th e c a s e b a r s o n ly thos e l e ga l i s s ue s tha tw e r e a c tua l l y , orby ne c e s s a ry i m pl i c a t i on, deci ded i n the form erproceedi ng , w hi l e c l ai m prec l usi on bars r e l i t i ga t i on notonl y of

c l a i m s r a i s e d buta l s o c l a i m s tha tc oul d ha ve b e e n r a is e d . Just i ce O aks I I, 89 8 F . 2d at15 49 n. 3 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed). H er e, the bank rupt cycourtcorr ec t l y f ou nd that , i n l i gh tof the di vo rc e c ourt ’ s c l a r i f

i c a t i on or de r , i tw a s pr e c l ude d by the “ l a w of the c a s e ” doc tr i ne f

r om r e - litig a tin g th e is s u e o f to w h a t e x te n t th e d iv o r c e c o u r t in te n d e d its a w a r d to co n stitu te su p p o rt. In C u m m in g s I , w e e x p re ss ly ac k n o w led g ed th e s tate co u rt’s author i ty a nd c onc urr e ntj ur i s di c t i on t o de t e rm i ne w he the ra n obl i ga t i on i s i n the na tur e of s upportw i thi n the m e a ni ng of § 523( a ) ( 5) . C um m i ngs I , 244 F . 3d a t 1 2 6 7 . W e s tr e s s e d th a t b a n k ru p tc y c o u r ts s h o u ld a v o id “in c u r s io n s in to f a m ily l a w m a tt e r s outof

c ons i de r a t i on of

c our te c onom y , j udi c i a l r e s tr a i nt , a nd our8

defe re nce t o o ur st at e c ou rtbrethren and thei r e st abl i shed expert i se i n such m att er s. ” I d. W hen the bank rupt cycourton re m and there af t ersoug htt o ass ert excl usi ve j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe ca se and enj oi n S usan fr om se eki ng the di vo rc e c ourt ’ s c l a r i f

i c a t i on, w e gr a nt e d m a nda m us r e l i e f a nd e xpr e s s l y di r e c t e d the bank rupt cycourtt o v ac at e i t s “ [e ] xcl usi ve [j ] uri sdi ct i on order” and abat e f urther p r o c e e d in g s o n th e d is c h a r g e ab ility is s u e u n til S u s a n h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to o b ta in s u c h c la r if

ic a tio n . R 1 - 2 6 a t 3 - 4 . A s s u c h , o u rtw o d e c is io n s e s tab lis h e d th e ru le tha tthe ba nkrupt c y c ourt ’ s r e vi e w w a s l i m i t e d onl y t o de t e rm i ni ng the i nt e ntof the di vor c e c ourtw he n i tm a de the a w a r d, nots e c ond gue s s i ng the a m ountof the aw ar d thatshou l d h ave been l abel ed as supp ort . T hu s, the bank rupt cycourt pr ope r l y di s r e ga r de d L a w r e nc e ’ s a tt e m ptt o pr e s e nta ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e t o s how thatthe aw ar d am ou ntw as exce ss i ve w hen com pare d t o S usan’ s m on thl y s up po rt n e e d s . A s w e not e d i n C um m i ngs I , the di vor c e c our tw a s ac our tof c om pe t e nt j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe s uppor ti s s ue , a nd ne i the rpa r ty di s put e s tha tthe d iv o rc e c o u rt’s d ec isio n m et th e r eq u irem en ts o f d u e p ro ce ss . T h e d iv o rc e c o u rt’s cl ar i fi ca t i on order r es ol ved the supp orti ss ue on the m er i t s, L aw re nce app ea l ed that o r d e r , an d th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t a f f irm e d . T h e p a r tie s w e r e id e n tic a l in b o th p r o c e e d in g s . T h u s , o n c e th e d iv o r c e c o u r t r e s o lv e dth e is s u e o f its in te n t,9

L a w r e n c e w a s p r e c lu d e d f r o m r e litig a tin g th a t c la im b e f o r e th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt. S e e J us t i c e O a ks I I , 898 F . 2d a t1550. A ttha tpoi nt , the onl y thi ng l e f tf orthe bank rupt cycourtt o d o w as t o t ake the fi nal anal yt i ca l st ep and app l y the di vo rc e c o u rt’s f a c tu a l c la r if

ic a tio n to th e d is c h a r g e ab ility c o n te x t u n d e r§ 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) . N ot abl y , ourde c i s i on i n C um m i ngs I a l s o s poke t o tha ti s s ue a s w e l l , c l a r i f y i ng th a t “[ t]o th e e x te n t th e [ d iv o r c e ] c o u r t in te n d e d ap o r tio n o f th e o b lig a tio n to f unc t i on a s s upport , tha tde bti s nondi s c ha r ge abl e unde r§ 523( a ) ( 5) . ” C um m i ngs I , 2 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 6 . T he ba nkrupt c y c ourtc orr e c t l y f ound tha ti tw a s ba rr e d by the “ l a w of the ca se ” d o ctrin e f

ro m in d ep en d en tl y d eter m in in g to w h at ex ten t th e d iv o rc e c o u rt’s j udgm e ntw a s i nt e nde d t o be i n the na tur e of s uppor tw i thi n the m e a ni ng of § 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e b a n k ru p t c y c o u r tp r o p e r l y f o u n d th a tth e f

i r s ttwo l um p sum paym ent s w er e notdi sc hargeabl e und er§ 5 23 (a )( 5) base d o n the di vo rc e c o u rt’s c la r if

ic a tio n o r d e r . S e c ond, L a w r e nc e c ont e nds tha tthe ba nkrupt c y j udge abus e d hi s di s c r e t i on in f a ilin g to r e c u s e h im s e lf

f r o m th e a d v e r s a ry p r o c e e d in g . I n s u p p o r t o f h is m ot i on, L a w r e nc e a r gue s tha tthe ba nkrupt c y j udge ’ s c om m e ntr e ga r di ng L aw re nce’ s abi l i ty t o p ayfor the se rvi ce s of apres t i gi ou s S ou th F l ori da l aw fi rm w hi l e S us a n a nd the C um m i ngs ’ s c hi l dr e n “ s uf f e r [ e d] f r om de pl or abl e l i vi ng10

co n d i t i o n s” w as d i rect l y refu t ed b y o v erw h el m i n g ev i d en ce i n th e b an k ru p t cy case es t abl i shi ng hi s ow n “ di re fi nanci al cond i t i on , ” and thu s m usthave been devel op ed fr om an extra -j ud i ci al source of i nform at i on . R 1-26 at4-5. In addi t i on , L aw re nce p o i n t s t o th e b an k ru p t cy j u d g e’ s o n -th e-reco rd st at em en tth ath e “ h o p e[d ] th atM s. C u m m in g s is s u c c e s s f

u l in h e rp u r s u it a s f

a ra s th e r e c o v e ry o f

m o n e y s o w e d to her, ” w hi ch L aw re nce l abel s a s “ chee rl ea di ng ” and evi dence of an “ ob vi ou s bi as . ” R 1 - 2 4 a t 1 3 - 1 5 . W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o rr e c u s a l f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . C h r is to v. P adgett , 22 3 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 33 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). T he prop erst andard un der § 4 5 5 ( a ) is “w h e th e ra n o b je c tiv e , f u lly in f o rm e d lay o b s e rv e rw o u ld e n te r ta in s ig n if ic a n t d o u b t ab o u t th e ju d g e ’s im p a r tia lity .” I d . A ju d g e m u s t b e r e c u s e d if the j ud ge i s per sonal l y bi as ed or prej ud i ce d agai nsta party or i n favor of an a dve r s e pa rty , orw he ne ve rthe j udge ’ s “ i m pa r t i a l i ty m i ghtr e a s onabl y be que s t i one d. ” 28 U . S . C . §§ 144, 455( a ) . “ T he e xc e pt i on t o thi s rul e i s w he n a j ud ge’ s r em arks i n a j ud i ci al cont extdem on stra t e s uch p ervasi ve bi as and p re j ud i ce th a t it c o n s titu te s b ia s a g a in s t ap a r ty .” I d . ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . I n thi s c a s e , the ba nkrupt c y j udge di d notabus e hi s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng L a w r e nc e ’ s m ot i on f

orr e c us a l . T he onl y gr ounds c i t e d i n s uppor tof the m ot i on w er e tw o i sol at ed com m ent s m ade over the course of t en ye ar s of protra ct ed11

l i t i g a t i o n . De s p i t e L a wr e n c e ’ s s u g g e s t i o n t o th e c o n tr a ry , n e i th e ro f th e two chal l enged com m ent s w as base d o n i nform at i on deri ved from an extra -j ud i ci al s o u r c e . F ir s t, th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e ’s ju x tap o s itio n o f L a w r e n c e ’s ap p a r e n t ab ility t o a f f or d the s e rvi c e s of

apr e s t i gi ous l a w f

i rm t o S us a n’ s “ de pl or abl e ” l i vi ng c o n d itio n s a n d p r o s e s ta tu s in th a t c o u r t w a s ac o m m e n t b a s e d o n th e ju d g e ’s f ir s thand kn ow l edge of the bank rupt cypl ea di ng s them se l ves. R 1-26 at5. T hat co m m en t d irec tl y r elated to an issu e th en b ef o re th e c o u rt, n am ely, S u sa n ’s as se rt ed ent i t l em entt o em er gency f i nanci al supp ort , a r equestthatthe court c oi nc i de nt a l l y de ni e d. L a w r e nc e ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe j udge ne c e s s a r i l y m us tha ve c o n s u lte d s o m e u n id e n tif ie d e x tr a - ju d ic ia l s o u r c e o f

in f o rm a tio n , w h ile d is r e g a r d in g th e r e c o r d e v id e n c e o f L a w r e n c e ’s o w n “d ir e f in a n c ia l c o n d itio n ,” is uns upport e d a nd ba s e l e s s . R 1- 24 a t14. S e c ond, the ba nkrupt c y j udge ’ s c om m e nt re gardi ng hi s hop e thatS usan w ou l d b e s ucce ss ful i n col l ec t i ng m on eyow ed t o h er a l s o s t e m m e d s ol e l y f

r om aj udi c i a l s our c e ; i toc c urr e d on the oc c a s i on of the co n firm atio n o f h ero w n b an k ru p tcy r eo rg an izatio n p lan . C o n trar y to L aw re n ce ’s c la im th a t th e ju d g e w a s c h e e r le a d in g S u s a n ’s a tte m p ts to c o lle c t th e e q u itab le di stri bu t i on fr om L aw re nce, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthatthe bank rupt cy j udge r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve m a de thi s s t a t e m e nta s a n i nnoc uous e xpr e s s i on of12

h o p e in h e rab ilityto o n e d a y s a tis f y h e rin d iv id u a l d e b ts to h e ro w n c r e d ito r s . S e e R 1- 26 a t14. I n l i g h to f

th e e x t e n s i v e h i s t o ry o f th i s c a s e , we c o n c l u d e th a tth e two i s ol a t e d c om m e nt s L a w r e nc e r e l i e s upon do note vi nc e pe rva s i ve bi a s a nd prej ud i ce agai nstL aw re nce, and w e det erm i ne thata r ea sonabl e, ful l y i nform ed obj ec t i ve ob se rverw ou l d n otent ert ai n any si gn i fi cantdo ub tabou tthe bank rupt cy ju d g e ’s im p a rtia lity in th e p r o c e e d in g s . S e e C h r is to , 2 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 3 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e c id e th a t th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e d id n o t ab u s e h is d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g L a w r e n c e ’s m o tio n f o rr e c u s a l. I I I . CONCL US I ON L aw re n ce ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s af firm an ce o f th e b an k ru p tcy c o u rt’s orders det erm i ni ng thathi s obl i gat i on s und era s t at e c ou rtdi vo rc e dec re e are pa rt i a l l y di s c ha r ge abl e a nd pa rt i a l l y non- di s c ha r ge abl e , a nd de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or re cusa l of the bank rupt cyj ud ge. L aw re nce a rgues that(1) the bank rupt cycourt e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha ti tw a s ba rr e d by the “ l a w of the c a s e ” doc tr i ne f

r om i nd ependent l y r edet erm i ni ng w hatpo rt i on of the un derl yi ng st at e di vo rc e c ou rt ju d g m e n t w a s in te n d e d to b e “in th e n a tu r e o f s u p p o r t,” a s o p p o s e d to ap r o p e r ty s e tt l e m e nt ; a nd ( 2) the ba nkrupt c y j udge abus e d hi s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng L aw re nce’ s m ot i on for r ec usal . T he bank rupt cycourtcorr ec t l y hel d thati tw as13

bound by the “ l aw of

the c a s e ” doc tr i ne f

r om r e e xa m i ni ng w ha tpor t i on of the d iv o r c e c o u rt’s a w a r d w a s in th e n a tu r e o f s u p p o r t, a n d th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e d id n o tab u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g L a wr e n c e ’ s m o t i o n f o rr e c u s a l b e c au s e th e two chal l enged com m ent s w er e i sol at ed, di d n otar i se fr om an extra -j ud i ci al source , a nd w oul d notl e a d ar e a s onabl e obs e rve rt o que s t i on the j udge ’ s i m pa r t i a l i ty . T he d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er i s AF F I RME D.