UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

__________________________________ 

 ) 

In re: ) CASE NO. 21-12844-RAM

 ) CHAPTER 11

HARRY BECK GREENHOUSE, )

 ) 

Debtor. )

 )

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND

DENYING, IN PART, MOTION TO ENFORCE

FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

The Court conducted a hearing on June 2, 2022, on the Expedited 

Motion to Enforce Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the 

“Motion to Enforce”) [DE# 346], filed by the Debtor’s former wife, 

Olivia Sampaio Greenhouse (the “Former Wife”). The Court has 

considered the record, including the Motion to Enforce, Polychain’s 

Preliminary Objection to Expedited Motion to Enforce Final Judgment 

of Dissolution of Marriage (the “Polychain Objection”) [DE# 352], 

and the Former Wife’s Reply to [the Polychain Objection] [DE# 353]. 

Robert A. Mark, Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________ United States Bankruptcy Court

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 29, 2022.

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 12
2

The Court has also considered the arguments of counsel presented at 

the June 2nd hearing, and most importantly, carefully reviewed the 

Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the “Final Judgment”) 

entered by the state court on May 24, 2022 in Case No. 2021-005073-

FC-04 (the “Dissolution Case”) [DE# 345-1]. Finally, the Court has 

considered applicable state and federal law.

For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Enforce will be 

granted in part and denied in part. The Court will enforce those 

portions of the Final Judgment ordering the transfer of any property 

that is exempt from administration in this bankruptcy case. However, 

the provision in the Final Judgment awarding the Former Wife the 

Debtor’s interest in MetaStable Capital, L.P. (“MetaStable”), cannot 

be enforced. The MetaStable investment is non-exempt property of 

the estate that is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and the 

disposition of this asset should be addressed in the Debtor’s chapter 

11 plan. Moreover, the state court awarded the MetaStable investment 

to the Former Wife primarily as her share of the equitable 

distribution plan value, and the equitable distribution award 

entered after the filing of the bankruptcy petition is an unsecured 

non-priority claim in this case.

Background Facts

The material facts are not in dispute.

The Debtor filed a petition commencing this Subchapter V 

chapter 11 case on March 26, 2022. Just 11 days before filing his 

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 12
3

chapter 11 petition, on March 15, 2022, the Debtor filed a Petition 

for Dissolution of Marriage initiating the Dissolution Case. On May 

17, 2021, the Former Wife filed a motion seeking clarification on 

how the automatic stay affected the family court’s authority to 

proceed in the Dissolution Case [DE# 91].

On June 9, 2021, Judge Cristol, the initial judge assigned to 

this bankruptcy case, entered his Order Granting Creditor Olivia 

Sampaio Greenhouse’s Motion for an Order: (A) Confirming the 

Automatic Stay is Inapplicable to: (1) Pending Dissolution 

Proceeding Involving a Determination of Domestic Support 

Obligations; and (2) the Determination of Equitable Distribution of 

Non-Estate, Exempt Property, But Subject to Bankruptcy Court’s Final 

Determination of Objection to Exemptions, if any, and (B) Modifying 

the Automatic Stay to Determine Equitable Distribution of Estate 

Property, Subject to Final Bankruptcy Court Approval (the “Stay 

Clarification Order”) [DE# 136]. The Stay Clarification Order 

confirmed that the automatic stay exception in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2)

allowed the family court to establish or modify support obligations 

and child custody and visitation issues “except to the extent that 

such proceeding seeks to determine the division of property that is 

[property] of the estate” [DE# 136, p. 2, ¶ 2] (typographical error 

corrected in bracketed insertion).

The Stay Clarification Order also confirmed that the family 

court “may adjudicate the equitable distribution of the Debtor’s 

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 12
4

exempt assets” subject to the resolution of any objections to 

exemptions pending in this bankruptcy case [DE# 136, p. 3 ¶ 2] 

(emphasis added). Finally, the Stay Clarification Order granted 

limited stay relief to allow the family court to 

issue a declaratory determination of Mrs. 

Sampaio Greenhouse’s interest in estate exempt 

or non-exempt property. The Bankruptcy court 

shall retain jurisdiction to administer and/or 

disburse property and make final adjudications 

as to any claims asserted by Mrs. Sampaio 

Greenhouse.

[DE# 136, p. 3, ¶ 4].

To summarize, the Stay Clarification Order first confirmed

exactly what the Bankruptcy Code provides in § 362(b)(2). The 

automatic stay does not stay proceedings to determine domestic 

support obligations (“DSOs”) or to determine child support and 

custody issues. The stay also does not apply to the collection of 

a DSO from property, including exempt property, that is not property 

of the estate. Second, the Stay Clarification Order granted limited 

stay relief to allow the family court to determine the Former Wife’s 

interest in exempt or non-exempt property. This meant that the state 

court could determine the amount of the Former Wife’s equitable 

distribution. Notably, the Stay Clarification Order did not grant 

stay relief to allow the family court to order the Debtor to transfer 

to the Former Wife non-exempt property of the bankruptcy estate.

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 12
5

The Dissolution Judgment

On May 24, 2022, the family court entered the Final Judgment 

subject of the Motion to Enforce. Judge Young attempted to comply 

with the Stay Clarification Order by addressing support and child 

custody issues and the equitable distribution of marital assets, 

while recognizing that the Final Judgment may not be ratified in its 

entirety by this Court. Final Judgment, p.5 (“The [State] Court 

acknowledges that any equitable distribution award is subject to the 

concurrent jurisdiction of and administration by the Bankruptcy 

Court.”).

In material part, the Final Judgment directs the Debtor to do 

the following:

(i) Transfer the Health Savings Account ending in *1962 to the 

Former Wife within ten days of entry of a dissolution judgment,

(ii) Divide the Vanguard SEP IRA ending in *9485 in half and 

transfer to the Former Wife her one-half share within ten days 

of entry of a dissolution judgment,

(iii) Immediately transfer to the Former Wife his interest 

in MetaStable Capital L.P. – 0.3% (Main Investment), 

(iv) Pay the Former Wife $17,000 per month until the Debtor’s 

interest in MetaStable Capital L.P. – 0.3% (Main Investment) 

is transferred to the Former Wife, is liquidated and invested 

by the Former Wife, and begins generating returns for the Former 

Wife, and

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 5 of 12
6

(v) Pay the Former Wife’s counsel $13,978.17 in attorney’s 

fees and costs within ten days of entry of a dissolution 

judgment.

Final Judgment, pp. 6, 7, 10, 20, 22 [DE# 345].

The Motion to Enforce seeks expedited relief because the Final 

Judgment directed the Debtor to transfer the Health Saving Account 

and divide up the Vanguard SEP IRA within 10 days and directed the 

immediate transfer of the MetaStable investment. Although the Court 

conducted the June 2nd hearing on the Motion to Enforce on short 

notice, the Court finds that the issues have been adequately briefed 

and argued.

Discussion

Finalizing a marital dissolution while a bankruptcy case is 

pending can be tricky. Some things are expressly allowed by the 

automatic stay exception in § 362(b)(2). As applied here, unless 

the exempt status of the Health Savings Account and IRA remain

subject to challenge, the family court had the authority to direct 

the Debtor to transfer one-half of his interest in the Vanguard IRA 

and to transfer his Health Savings Account. And, without question, 

Judge Young had the authority to determine child custody issues, to 

fix the amount of durational and rehabilitative alimony, and to 

award the Former Wife attorney’s fees as part of her support.

The family court also had authority under the Stay 

Clarification Order to determine the amount that the Former Wife is 

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 6 of 12
7

entitled to as equitable distribution. However, the family court 

did not have the authority to order the Debtor to transfer the 

MetaStable investment.

First, whether intended as support or equitable distribution, 

or both, the family court did not have jurisdiction to order the 

Debtor to transfer the MetaStable investment. All agree that this 

asset is not exempt and is property of the bankruptcy estate. 

Therefore, only this Court has jurisdiction to determine the 

disposition of the MetaStable investment,1 and presumably will make 

that determination when it considers confirmation of an amended 

chapter 11 plan.

Second, this Court flatly rejects the argument by the Debtor 

and the Former Wife that the MetaStable investment was transferred 

entirely for support and that the entire value of that asset should 

be considered a DSO. Several provisions in the Final Judgment refute 

that argument. To be sure, the family court ordered the transfer 

of MetaStable for multiple purposes. The principal value of 

1 See, e.g., In re Campbell, 185 B.R. 628, 630 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 

1995) (“Motions or proceedings that seek to collect maintenance or 

support are excepted from the stay only if they do not seek to 

collect from property of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. 

§362(b)(2)(B). Otherwise, further relief from this Court must be 

obtained.”); In re Golan, 600 B.R. 697, 708-09 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 

2019) (“The exception from the automatic stay for dissolution 

proceedings extends to the declaration of dissolution of the 

marriage but does not encompass a division of marital property that 

is property of the estate or the payment of a domestic support 

obligation from property of the estate. See Carver v. Carver, 945 

F.2d at 1577; 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (iv).”).

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 7 of 12
8

MetaStable, pegged at $1,103,281, was intended as an equitable 

distribution award. In fact, as shown in the excerpts cited below, 

that value exceeded the Former Wife’s share of the equitable 

distribution plan value by $44,338, and that additional value was 

awarded as rehabilitative alimony. Finally, the income that the 

Former Wife was expected to receive after liquidating MetaStable and 

investing the money, pegged at $2,620, was intended to be part of 

the durational support award. These conclusions are supported by 

the following provisions in the Final Judgment:

MetaStable . . . is the optimal available asset from which 

to award Wife her share of the equitable distribution plan 

value, considering the transfer and liquidation 

restrictions of the other marital investment interests.

* * *

Awarding the Wife MetaStable Capital L.P. – 0.3% (Main 

Investment) will result in an equitable distribution 

differential of $44,338.00 in Wife’s favor based on the 

September 2021 value.

* * *

The Court finds that the $44,338.00 equitable distribution 

difference attributable to the value of MetaStable Capital 

L.P. – 0.3% (Main Investment) shall be awarded to the Wife 

as a lump sum rehabilitative and bridge-the-gap alimony.

Considering the circumstances of this case and in the 

interest of equity, the Court awards the Wife all interest 

in MetaStable Capital L.P. – 0.3% (Main Investment) as 

part of the equitable distribution plan and as lump sum 

rehabilitative and bridge-the-gap alimony. Husband is 

directed to immediately effectuate the transfer of the 

MetaStable Capital L.P. – 0.3% (Main Investment) to the 

Wife. The Court orders that the Wife shall retain the 

difference of $44,338.00 upon liquidation of MetaStable 

Capital L.P. – 0.3% (Main Investment), which sum shall 

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 8 of 12
9

constitute lump sum rehabilitative and bridge-the-gap 

alimony in addition to the award of durational alimony set 

forth below. The rehabilitative, bridge-the-gap, and 

durational alimony awards shall collectively constitute 

Husband’s domestic support obligation. 

Final Judgment, pp.9-10 (emphasis added).

The Former Wife acquired her claim to the Debtor’s interest in 

the MetaStable investment pursuant to an equitable distribution 

award that was entered during the pendency of this bankruptcy case. 

Equitable distribution awards that are entered during the pendency 

of a bankruptcy case become general unsecured claims because a former 

spouse’s interests in a debtor’s property are “cut off by the filing 

of the bankruptcy.” In re Price, 154 B.R. 344, 346 (Bankr. N.D. 

Fla. 1993) (citation omitted); see also In re Bellafiore, 492 B.R. 

109, 116 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting cases for the 

proposition that a former spouse has only an unsecured claim for 

interests in a debtor’s property if the interests are awarded in a 

divorce judgment that is entered after the debtor files a bankruptcy 

petition). Therefore, the Former Wife’s claim for the MetaStable 

investment is a general unsecured claim.

Based upon the foregoing, it is -

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Enforce is granted in part. Upon the 

finality of this Order, as defined in paragraph 6 below, the Debtor’s 

obligation to transfer the Health Savings Account and one-half of 

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 9 of 12
10

the Vanguard IRA shall be effective and the Debtor shall execute the

documents necessary to effectuate these transfers.

2. The Motion to Enforce is denied to the extent it seeks to 

enforce the provision in the Final Judgment directing the Debtor to 

transfer MetaStable to the Former Wife.

3. The Court appreciates that the transfer and liquidation 

of the MetaStable investment, if allowed, would enable the Former 

Wife to receive her $44,338 in rehabilitative alimony. Because the 

award of rehabilitative alimony, and the attorney’s fee award, are 

DSOs and therefore priority claims under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1), the 

Court invites the Former Wife or the Debtor to seek an Order from 

this Court allowing early payment of these claims.

4. The Court also understands that the projected investment 

income that the Former Wife would receive after liquidating the 

MetaStable investment, estimated to be $2,620 per month, was 

intended to be part of the durational alimony award. This is not 

an immediate issue because, without a transfer of MetaStable, the 

Final Judgment requires the Debtor to continue paying $17,000 per 

month, rather than the $12,000 per month awarded in the Final 

Judgment, a reduction based, in part, on the imputation of $2,620 

per month in investment income from liquidation of the MetaStable 

investment. 

5. Nothing in this order is intended to limit the family 

court’s authority and discretion to enter an amended judgment that 

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 10 of 12
11

provides different amounts for equitable distribution, 

rehabilitative alimony, durational alimony, or attorney’s fees now 

that this Court has prohibited the transfer of the MetaStable 

investment.

6. This Order shall not be final until the later of (i) 14 

days from entry on the docket; or (ii) the resolution of any timely 

filed motion for reconsideration.

###

COPIES TO:

Nicole Grimal Helmstetter, Esq.

Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1500

Miami, FL 33131

John D. Emmanuel, Esq.

Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC

401 E. Jackson St.

Suite 2400

Tampa, FL 33601

Ido J. Alexander, Esq.

Alignx Law

12555 Orange Drive, Suite 4159

Davie, FL 33330

Linda M. Leali, Sub V Trustee

Linda Leali, P.A.

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300

Coral Gables, FL 33134

James C. Moon, Esq.

Meland Budwick, P.A.

3200 Southeast Financial Center

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, FL 33131

Office of the U.S. Trustee

51 SW 1 Ave. #1204

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 11 of 12
12

Miami, FL 33130

(Attorney Helmstetter is directed to serve a copy of this Order on 

all other interested parties and file a Certificate of Service)

Case 21-12844-RAM Doc 368 Filed 06/29/22 Page 12 of 12