By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of t his de c isi on is l im ite d to thec as e an d p ar tie s p ur su an t to 6th C i r
. B A P L B R 8 0 1 3 -1 (b). S

ee a l s o 6 th C i r
. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 0 -1 (c).
F ile Nam e: 08b0001n.06
BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I n re: ROBERT E. L ONG a nd TERESA MAE L ONG,
De bto rs
.

______________________________________ KRI STEN N. HARDMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. ROBERT E. L ONG,

De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 07-8022

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court fo r t he Sou the rn

Di str ic t of

Oh io, Ea ste rn

Di vis ion , at Co lum

bu s. No. 05-53152; 05-2275. Submit ted: Fe bruar

y 5, 2008
Dec ided and F iled: Febr

uary 29, 2008
B e fo re : PA RSO NS, SCO TT , a nd SHE A- STO NU M, B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL
O N B RI E F: Robert E. L ong , I rwin, Ohio, pro se

.B e c a us e the De bto rs fi le d th e ir ba nk ru ptc y pe tit ion pr ior to Oc tob e r 17, 20 05 , the c a se is 1 g overne d by

the Ba nkruptcy Code without r eg ard to the amendments made to the Ba nkruptcy Code by the B ankruptc y Abuse P reve ntion and C onsumer P rotec tion Act of 2005. A ll statutory ref ere nces are to the Ba

nkruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 to 1330 (2004), unless otherwise spe cifica lly noted.

- 2- ____________________ OP IN ION

____________________

M A RI L YN SH E A

- ST O N U M , B an kr u p tc y A p p e ll a te Pa

n e l Ju d g e
. Ro b e rt E. L ong (“ Ap pe lla nt” ) a pp e a ls the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s jud g me nt and me mor and um o pin ion

e xce pti ngc e rt a in debts set forth in his divorce decr ee from di schar g e under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)

. The ba nkruptcy 1 court found the debts wer e incurred in connec tion with the Appellant’s divorce and the Appellant fa ile d to pr ov e his ina

bil ity to p ay the de bts or

tha t th e be ne fi t to him

of the dis c ha

rg e of the de bts would outweig h the detriment to his former wife, Kristen N. Har dman (“A ppellee” ). F or the re asons stated below, w e AF FI RM the bankruptcy court’s de cision.

I. ISSU ES ON AP P EAL

Th e iss ue be fo re the Pane l is wh e the r t he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt e rr e d in fi nd ingthat c e rt a in d e bts i n cu rr edb y

t h e A p p el l an ti nco n n ec t i o nwi t h h i s d i v o rc e d e c re e a re ex ce p t edfr o m d i s ch ar ge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)( 15).

II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW

Th e B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l of

the Sixth C ir c uit ha s jur isd ic tio n to de c ide thi s a pp e a l. The United States District C o u rt for the Souther n District of Ohio has a

uthorized appea ls to the Pane l, a nd a fi na l or de r o f t

he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt may be a pp e a le d as of ri g ht p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 158(a) (1). F or purpose s of appe al , a fi n al o rd er “ ends the litigation on the merits and leave s nothing f or the c ourt to do but execute the judg ment.” Midland Asphalt Cor p. v. United States , 489- 3-

U.S. 794, 798, 109 S. C t. 1494, 1497 (1989) (c itations omi tted). “Abankruptc y court’s judg ment deter mining discha

rg eability is a final and a

ppeala ble orde r.” Cash Am. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Fox ( In re Fox) , 3 7 0 B. R

. 1 0 4 , 1 0 9 (B

. A. P

. 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Hertzel v. E duc. Credit Mgmt. Corp. ( In

re He rtz e l) , 329 B.R. 221, 224-25 ( B.A .P. 6th C ir. 2005)).

Deter minations of discharg eability under 11 U .S.C. § 523 ar e conclusions of law r eviewe d de novo. In re Fox , 370 B.R. at 109 (c i t i n g Bailey v . Bailey ( In re Bailey

) , 2 5 4 B. R

. 9 0 1, 903 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2000)). De novo revie w re quires the “ appellate court [to determine] the law independe ntly of the trial c ourt’s dete rmination.” Id. (q u o t i n g O’ Br ie n v. Ra v e ns woo d A

pa rtm e nts , Ltd. (I n re Rave nswood Apartments, Lt d.) , 338 B.R. 307, 310 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2006))

.
The fa ctual deter

minations underly ing the bankruptc y court’s discha

rg eability finding s are upheld on appe al unless they are clea rly err oneous. Id. (c i t i n g Hertzel v. E duc. Credit Mgmt. Corp. ( In re He rtz e l) , 329 B.R. 221, 225 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2005) a nd Van Ake n v Van Aken (

In re Van Ak

en) , 320 B.R. 620, 622 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. 2005) (dischar g eability deter minations present mix ed questions of law a nd fac t; the bankruptcy

court’s c onclusions of law a re reviewe d de novo, while findings of fac t are revie wed for c lear err or)) . A fa ctual dete rmination is clear ly err oneous “w hen althoug h there is evidence to suppor

t it, the revie wing court on the entire evidenc e is left with the def inite and firm conviction that a mistake ha s been c ommitt ed.” Bailey v. Bailey ( In re Bailey ), 254 B .R. 901, 903 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2000) ( citations omitt ed).

III . F AC TS

For the re asons that follow, a complete discussion of the leng thy finding s of fa ct made by

the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt fo llo wi ngtr ia l of

thi s matte r i s n ot n e c e ssa ry , r a the r t

he y are inc or po rate d b y

thi s
re fe re nc e . O n Jan

ua ry 24 , 2 00 7, the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt iss ue d its mem or and

um opi nio n de ta ili ngits finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law and, on J anuar y 25, 2007, enter ed a final judg ment in favor of the Ap pe lle e
. F oll ow ing an exte ns ion of tim e to a pp e a l, t he Ap pe lla

nt t ime ly fi le d a no tic e of thi sOn May 30, 2007, an o rd er wa s i s s ued to the Appe llant notify ing him of a proce dural 2 defa ult, that no designation of rec ord had been filed, and advising that the appe al would be dismissed for non-prosec ution unless the default was cured within 15 day s. When the default was not cur ed, the cler k of the Pane l issued an orde r dismissing the appe al on J une 15, 2007. On June 22, 2007, the Appellant filed a motion to reope n the appea l on g rounds of a cler ical err or. He stated that the desig nation of re cord w as filed on J une 4, 2007, and attache d a file stamped c opy . On J uly 3, 2007, the cler k of the Pane l issued an orde r re instating the a ppeal to the a ctive docke t of the cour t.

- 4- appea l. The Designation of R ecor d and the Addendum of Desig nation of R ecor d in this appeal (J.A.

2 Ex cer pts 6 and 8) consist of documents that wer e not prese nted at trial. Fur ther, the r ecor d on appea l do e s n ot i nc lud e any

po rt ion of the tr ans c ri pt o f t

he tr ia l in ba nk ru ptc y c ourt

.

IV . D ISC USS ION

As it was in eff

ect at the time the Appellant filed his bankruptcy case , § 523(a) (15) e x cepte d from discha

rg e mar tial o b ligations that were not a limony , maintenanc e, or suppor t obligations

cover ed by § 523(a) (5). Ha mm e rm e ist e r v. H am me rm e ist e r (

In re Ha mm e rm e ist e r) , 270 B.R. 863, 875-76 (B ankr. S.D. Ohio 2001). Sec tion 523(a)( 15) provided that a d eb t o r may not discharg e a de bt: (15) not of t h e k i n d d escr ibed in para g raph ( 5) that is incurre d by the debtor in the c ours e of a div or c e or

se para ti on or

in c on ne c tio n w itha

se pa ra tio n a g re e me nt, div or c e de c re e or

oth e r o rd er of a co ur

t of re c or d, a

de te rm inatio n ma de in a c c or da nc e wi th S ta te or

te rr ito ri a l la

w b y a g ov e rnme nta l un it unle ss— (A) the debtor doe s not have t h e abilit y to pay such debt fr om income or proper ty of t h e d eb tor not rea sonably nece ssary

to be expended for

the maintenanc e or suppor

t of the debtor or a de pendent of the debtor a

nd, if the debtor is enga g ed in a busi ness, for the pay ment of ex penditures ne cessa ry for the continuation, pre servation, and operation of such business; or (B ) dischar gi n g s u ch debt would re sult in a benefit to the debtor that ou tw e ig hs the de tr ime nta l c on se qu e nc e s to a sp ou se , for me r spo us e , or c hil d of the de btor. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)

. The objec ting c reditor s pouse had the initial burden of provingthat the debt wa s one excepted from discha

rg e under § 523(a) (15). Hart v. Molino ( In re M olino) , 22 5 B .R. 90 4, 90 7 ( B .A .P. 6th Cir. 1998). Once the obj ecting spouse m et t hat burden, the burden shifted t o the debtor to prove one of the a ffirmative defe nses outlined in subsections (A) or (B ) by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e.- 5-

Id. ; Grogan v. Garne r , 498 U.S. 279, 291, 111 S. C t. 654, 66 1 (1991). In the pre sent ca se, the Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the ba nk ruptc y c ou rt ’s fi nd ingthat th e de bts a t is su e are pr op e rt y
s et t l ement debts in connection with the parties’ divorce decr ee. H e does, how ever , challeng e the

cou rt ’s ca l cu lation of disposable income use d to determine w hether he has the ability

to pay the Pr op e rt y Se ttl e me nt D e bts and

the fa ilure of

the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt to a pp ly the ba lanc ingte st.
Many courts applied the disposable income test to dete rmine whe ther the de btor had a n ability to pay for the purposes of § 523(a)( 15). In re Ham merme ister , 2 70 B .R. a t 87 7. Un de r t his test, discharge wa s appropr iate only wher e re paying the non support obligation would reduce a debtor’s c urre nt income below the le vel re as o n ab l y neede d for the suppor

t of the debtor a

nd the debtor’s de pendents. Jesticev Je stice ( In re J estice) , 168 F. App’ x . 39, 44 (6th Cir. 2006).

Under subsection 523(a )(15) (A), the starting p oint for the dete rmination of ability to pay

is at the time of trial. In re Smither , 194 B.R. 102, 108 (B ankr. W.D. Ky

. 1 9 9 6 ). A debtor’s future circ umstances a nd ear ning pote ntial may

also be considere d. Id.

. . . In th is d e te rm inatio n, re a so na bly ne c e ssa ry e xpe ns e s are tho se which ar e ade quate, a

nd not lux ury

items. Id. A n d a d e b to r is e xp e c te d to mi n im iz e his da ily expenses and do without amenities. B i ed erma n v. S

t o o dt (In r e S t o o dt

), 302 B.R. 549, 557 (B ankr. N .D. Ohio 2003). In re J estice , 168 F. App’ x . at 44.

The ba nkruptcy court found that the Appellant ear ns a mont hly

net income of

$1,679 from his fu ll t ime emp loy

me nt a nd an a pp ro xima te g ro ss m on thl y inc ome of

$7 50 fr om h is p art -t ime employ ment. The Appe llant challeng es the ba nkruptcy court’s finding reg ardingthe income f rom his part-time employ

ment, arguing that it is contra ry to his 2005 feder al income tax return whic h shows a $877 annua l loss of in co m e fr o m Papa Pinoni’s Piz za. Howeve r, the Appe llant has not pr ov ide d th e Pane l w ithany ba sis fo r d e te rm ini ngthat th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s fi nd ingwa s c le a rl y
e rr on e ou s. Th e a

pp e llate re c or d doe s not inc lud e any pa rt of the tr ia l tr ans c ri pt, and

we are un a

ble to determine f

rom the bankr

uptcy court’s me morandum opinion what evide nce the court c onsidered in c a lc ulatin g the Ap pe lla nt’ s in c ome fr om h is p art -t ime e mpl oy me nt. The Appe llant is re sponsible f or prese nting sufficie nt por tions of the bankruptc y court re cord to prove the e rror

claimed. R.D.F. De vs., Inc . v. Sysc o Corp. ( In re R.D .F. Dev

s., Inc.) , 239 B.R. 336L ocal Rule of the Ba nkruptcy Appellate Pane l 8009- 3 require s the appe ndix to include the 3 portions of the transc ript nece ssary for adequate revie w of the issues before the pane l and re quires th e Pa n e l t o c o n s id e r

o n ly th o s e p o rti o n s o f

th e tr an s c r ip t i n c lu d e d

in th e a p p e n d ix.

- 6- (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 1999). Where an appellant fails to me et his bur den to provide an a dequate rec ord 3

on a pp e a l, i t is imp os sib le fo r a pa ne l to de te rm ine that th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s fi nd ing s we re c le a rl y
err oneous. Ab ra ms v
. Se a P alm s. As so c s. Ltd . ( In re Ab ra ms

) , 229 B.R. 784, 789 (B .A.P. 9th Cir. 1999) (a ffirming the bankr uptcy court’s f indings of f

act in lig ht of the inadequate re cord on a ppeal)

. I n the pre sent ca se, without the trial transc ript, the rec ord is inadequate. Ther efor e, the pr esumption that the bankr

uptcy court acte d proper ly and made corr ect f actua l findings must preva il. Se e In re R.D.F. De vs., Inc

. , 239 B.R. at 3 4 0

. T h e Ap p ell ant has not shown that the ba nkruptcy court’s calc ulation of disposable i ncome and its conclusion t hat t he Appellant has t he abilit y to pay based on that calc ulation were clea rly err oneous. B ased on the rec ord b ef ore us, we are not left with a definite a nd firm conviction that a mistake has bee n committed. There fore , the Panel af firms the fi nd ing s o f t

he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt

. The Appe llant also argues that as a result of the “ ineffe ctive assistanc e” of his counsel, the bankruptc y

court did not consider the balanc ing test set forth in § 523(a )(15) (B ). Specific ally , he ref ers to his attorney ’s fa ilure to seek disc overy of the Appellee ’s financ ial status and his attorney ’s failure to produce tax returns that had been timely provided by the Appellant to him. Howeve r, the Six th Amendment rig ht to the effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel does not apply to civil matters such a s this procee ding. United States v. $100,375.00 in U.S. Currency , 70 F.3d 438, 440 (6th Cir. 1995) (c i t i n g Austin v. United States , 509 U. S. 602 , 113 S. Ct . 2 80 1 ( 19 93 )) ; Father & Sons Lumber and Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v . Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. , 931 F.2d 1093, 1097 ( 6th Cir. 1991).
The Appe llant bore the bur den of pr oof at trial on the ba lancingtest. In re M olino , 2 25 B .R.

a t 90 7. Th e ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ma de fi nd ing s o f f

a c t ba se d on th e evid e nc e pr e se nte d to it. Notwithstanding the alleg ed incompete nce of his lawy er, the failure to present suff icient evidenc e to establish by

a prepondera

nce of the evidence that the benefit to the debtor of t he dis char g e of the Property Settlement Debts out weig hed the detriment t o his former w ife wa s fatal to the Appe llant’s

case un d er § 5 23(a) (15)( B) . The ba nkruptcy court c orre ctly

noted that it would have c onsidered- 7-

evidenc e re lating to, int e r a lia , (1) the a moun t o f debt and pa

y ment terms; (2) a ll parties’ a nd sp ou se s’ c ur

re nt inc ome s; (3 ) a ll p art ie s’ and sp ou se s’ c ur

re nt e xpe ns e s; ( 4) a ll p art ie s’ and sp ou se s’

curr ent assets; (5) all parties’ and spouses’ c urre nt liabilit ies; (6) pa rties’ a nd spous es ’ h ealth, job training , education, ag e, and job skills; (7) depe ndents and their a g es and specia l needs; (8) chang es in financia l conditions since divorce ; (9) amount of debt to be discha rg ed; (10) if

objecting cre ditor is eligible f

or re lief un d er t h e Code; and (11) whether parties have ac ted in g ood faith in filing bankruptc y

and in litig ation of § 523(a) (15), had such a dditional information been made part of the evidenc e at tria l. Howeve r, such e vidence was not off ere d at trial.

I n this case, it i s not appropr iate on appeal to add a dditional proofs to the rec ord in an attempt to prove the Appellant’s case. See, e .g., Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v. Cummins Engine Co. , 332 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir. 2003). The pr oof must be pre sented at the trial court level, not on appea l. Sovere ign News Co. v. United States , 6 90 F .2 d 5 69 , 5 71 (6 th C ir . 1 98 2) (“A part y may no t by -p a ss t

he fa c tfinding p ro ce s s o f the lower court a nd introduce ne w fa cts in brief on a ppeal.” ). Ther efor e, the documents included in Excerpt 8 of the Appendix, which wer e not submitted to the bankruptc y court during trial, ca

nnot be consider ed by the Panel. Ba sed on the re cord be fore it, the bankruptcy court was not mistaken whe n it found that the Appellant fa iled to car ry his burden of proof on the balanc ing te st found in § 523(a)( 15)(B ) as it exist ed at the time he filed his bankruptc y case
.

V. CO NC LU SION
The Appe llant has failed to pr ovide a r ecor d to support his co n t en t i o n t hat the bankr uptcy court’s f indings of f

act we re c lear ly

err oneous. In addition, the Appellant did not show that the bankruptc y

court e rre d in finding that the Appellant fa iled to car ry his bur den of proof on the issues raised by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) (B ). Ther efor e, the de cision of the bankr uptcy court is AF FI RMED.