* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 13 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: CURTIS DALE DEWEY, also known as Curtis D. Dewey,

Debtor.

---------------------------------------- CURTIS DALE DEWEY,

Appellant,

v. DORIS DEWEY,

Appellee. No. 98-8082 (BAP No. WY-97-095) (Bankr. No. 97-21166) (D. Wyo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Debtor Curtis Dale Dewey appeals an order in which the bankruptcy court sustained an objection filed by appellee Doris Dewe y, debtor’s former spouse, to the confirmation of debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. The Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. Dewey v.- 2 -

Dewey (In re Dewey) , 223 B.R. 559, 561 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1998). Debto r now appeals to this court. We affirm. Debtor and appellee filed a Property Settlement Agr eement (“Agreement”) in Wyoming state court. Under the Agreement, debto r is responsible for seventeen debts exceeding $119,000 and appellee is responsible for one credit card debt of $50. The Agreement does not provide f or monthly alimony or support payments to appellee. After the Deweys fil ed the Agreement, the state court entered a Decree of Divorce that essentially copies the terms of the Agreement. Debtor then filed for protection under Chapter 13. Debtor listed appellee as a codebtor on seven debts, six of whichare listed as debtor’s debts in the Agreement and divorce decree. Debtor thereafte r submitted a Chapter 13 plan to which appellee objected. The bankruptcy court found that certain joint oblig ations debtor was ordered to pay under the divorce decree created a c ontingent claim in the nature of support on appellee’s behalf that was entitled t o priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). The bankruptcy court further found th at debtor’s Chapter 13 plan failed to provide for payment of appellee’s priority claim as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(2). Thus, the bankruptcy court denied co nfirmation of debtor’s plan. We review for clear error a bankruptcy court’s find ing that an obligation to a former spouse is in the nature of support. Young v. Young (In re Young) , 35 F.3d- 3 -

499, 500 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Sampson v. Sampson (In re Sampson) , 997 F.2d 717, 721 (10th Cir. 1993)). Debtor makes the following arguments: (1) the parti es did not intend to create an obligation of spousal support in the Agre ement or the divorce decree and the obligation is not in the nature of support, (2) much of the evidence provided by appellee is not admissible because the language of the Agreement and the divorce decree is clear and unambiguous, (3) th e divorce decree should not be relitigated in the bankruptcy court under the princ iples of collateral estoppel, and (4) judicial estoppel prohibits appellee from claim ing debtor’s debts are for support when she agreed to waive support under the Agreement. The BAP considered and rejected each of debtor’s ar guments in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. Based upon our review o f the record, the parties’ briefs, and our independent research, we conclude that the BAP properly denied debtor’s appeal. The bankruptcy court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the bankruptcycourt for substantially the same reasons set forth by the BAP in Dewey v. Dewey (In re Dewey) , 223 B.R. 559 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.- 4 - ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge