FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 04 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et Nos . 8: 10 -cv -0 22 16 -VMC ; 8: 08 -b k- 04 34 8- MGW

In Re: Mi ch ael Davi s,

Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

STATE OF FLORIDA, DE PARTMENT OF REVENUE, Ch il d S up po rt En fo rcem en t,

Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

MIC HAEL DA VIS,

Defen da nt - App el la nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 6 , 20 12 )Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d J ORDAN, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Mi ch ael Davi s ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s rev ers al of an or de r en te red by the

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t ha d en joi ne d th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t of

Rev en ue fro m at te m

pt in g to co ll ect fro m

Mr. Dav is pa st du e ch il d su pp or t th at ha d

be en di sa l l o w e d in th e ba nk ru pt cy pr oc eed in g. The di st ric t co ur t rev ers ed th e

b a n k ru pt cy co ur t, ho ld in g th at , in li gh t of th is co ur t’s in te rv en in g de ci si on in I n r e

Dia z , 64 7 F.3 d 10 73 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ), th e Dep art m en t of Rev en ue co ul d no t be ba rred

fro m pu rs ui ng po st -co nf

irmatio n co ll ect io n of Mr. Dav is ’ no n- di sc ha rg eab le ch il d

su pp or t ob li g a t i o n s

. Mr. Dav is co nt en ds th at In re Dia z do es no t co nt ro l, an d

m ai nt ai ns th at th e is su e of li ab il it y fo r th e ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on ha s be en de ci de d
by th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t. Any fu rth er en fo rcem en t, he sa y s, is pr ecl ud ed by co ll at eral

es to pp el an d res jud ic at a. W e di sa gr ee, an d co nc ur wit h th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt th at In re

Dia z is di sp os it iv e.

I

Mr. Dav is an d Mar y an ne Dav is were di vo rced in Ill in oi s in Feb ru ary of 19 97

.

Pu rs ua nt to th e te rm s of th e di vo rce, Mr. Dav is was ob li ga te d to m ak e ch il d su pp or t

pa y m en ts to Ms

. Dav is

. In Octo be r of 20 03 , th e Ill in oi s co ur t tra ns ferr ed ve nu e of th e

2di vo rce cas e, al on g with th e ob li ga ti on to pa y ch il d su pp or t, to Fl or id a. As a res ul t,

th e F lo rid a Dep art m en t of Rev en ue be cam e th e ag en cy res po ns ib le fo r reco ve ry of

an y un pa id ch il d s up po rt.

On Mar ch 17 , 20 08 , an in vo lu nt ar y C h a pt er 11 ba nk ru pt cy cas e was fil ed

ag ai ns t Mr. Dav is in th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t es ta bl is he d

Sep te m be r 29 , 20 08 , as th e cl ai m s ba r da te

. Sect io n 6.2 of th e ba nk ru pt c y p l an

pr ov id ed th at th e fai lu re to su bm it a cl ai m by th e cl ai m s ba r da te wou ld co ns ti tu te an

ad jud ic at io n, o n t he m eri ts , of t he de bt or ’s li ab il it y

.

Bo th Ms

. Dav is an d th e Dep art m en t of Rev en ue were no ti fie d of th e

ba nk ru pt cy

pro ceed in g a nd th e d ead li ne for fil in g cl ai m s. Eve n t ho ug h s he di d n ot

si gn th e pe ti ti on , Ms

. Dav is was in it ia ll y li st ed as a pe ti ti on in g cred it or , an d th eref or e

rece iv ed n o t i c e o f al l do cu m en ts fil ed in th e cas e. In hi s ba nk ru pt cy sc he du le s an d

st at em en t of fin an ci al affa irs
, Mr. Dav is li st ed th e Dep art m en t a s c r e di to r fo r a

di sp ut ed cla im

in th e am ou nt of $ 18 0,0 00 .00 for ch il d s up po rt.

Mr. Dav is fil ed hi s Ch ap te r 11 pl a n o n O ct ob er 3, 20 08 , an d su bm it te d an

am en de d Cha pt er 11 pl an on Marc h 2 4, 2 00 9. Th e b an kr up tc y co ur t con fir m ed th e
pl an an d is su ed a di sc ha rg e on May 20 , 20 09

. Neit he r Ms

. Dav is no r th e Dep art m en t

pa rti ci pa te d in th e ba nk ru pt cy cas e or fil ed pr oo fs of cl ai m wit h th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t

pr io r to th e cl ai m s b ar d at e o r th e co nf irmatio n o f th e p la n.

3On Ju ne 1, 20 09 , aft er th e pl an was co nf irmed, th e Dep art m en t fil ed a pr oo f of

cl ai m in th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t ag ai ns t Mr. Dav is in th e am ou nt of $1 80 ,00 0.0 0 fo r pa st

du e ch il d su pp or t pa y m en ts

. Mr. Dav is ob jecte d to th e cl ai m

. Afte r br ie fin g by th e 1

pa rti es an d or al arg um en t, t h e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t di sa ll owe d th e cl ai m un de r th e

co nf ir med p l a n as un ti m el y an d co nc lu de d th at Mr. Dav is ha d no li ab il it y fo r th e

cl ai m

.

De s p i te th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s ru li ng , th e Dep art m en t ag ai n at te m pt ed to

co ll ect Mr. Davi s’ pa st du e ch il d su pp or t, thi s t im e in st at e co ur t. Mr. Davi s fil ed a

m ot io n fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f wit h th e b a n k r u p t cy co ur t, se ek in g to en joi n th e
Dep a r t m en t fro m en fo rci ng th e ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on s in li gh t of th e ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t’s ru li ng th at he ha d n o l ia bi li ty.

Afte r ag ai n h av in g t he pa rti es br ie f th e is su es an d h eari ng ora l ar gu m en t, t he

ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t d et erm in ed th at , eve n t ho ug h c hi ld su pp or t ob li ga ti on s wer e n on

di sc ha rg eab le un de r th e Ban kr up tc y Co de
, it s pr io r de te rm in at io n th at Mr. Dav is ha d

no li ab il it y fo r th e pa st du e ch il d su pp or t was “ res jud ic at a as to an y ot he r co ur t.” The

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t de te rm in ed th at it was a vi ol at io n of th e co nf irmatio n or de r an d th e

di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n fo r th e Dep art m en t to en fo rce th e de bt an d es se nt ia ll y rel it ig at e

I t appea rs that the Depa

rtment filed the proof of claim beca use, when it attempted to 1 collect on p as t d u e support obliga tions afte r the bankruptc y , Mr. Davis asser ted that the Depa rtment’s ac tions were imprope r. See Ba nkruptcy Court Record, D.E . 317, at 17:10-14.

4th e is su e of li ab il it y fo r th e de bt

. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t th eref or e en joi ne d t h e
Dep art m en t fro m se ek in g to reco ve r the ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on s in an y fu tu re act io n.

The Dep art m en t ap pe al ed th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s or de r to th e d i s t ric t co ur t.

W hi le th at ap pe al was pe nd in g, we is su ed ou r de ci si on in In re Dia z , 64 7 F.3 d 10 73
(1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ). In li gh t of In re Dia z , th e di st ric t co ur t rev ers ed th e de ci si on of th e

ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t. Mr . Davi s fi le d t hi s ap pe al

.

II

W e rev ie w th e le ga l de te rm in at io ns m ad e by ei th er th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t or th e

di st ric t cou rt de no vo

. Se e In re Cl ub Ass oc ., 95 6 F.2d 10 65 , 10 69 (1 1t h Cir. 19 92 ).

The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s fact ua l de te rm in at io ns are su bjec t to rev ie w un de r th e cl earl y

erro ne ou s st an da rd

. Se e I n r e Th oma s , 88 3 F.2 d 99 1, 99 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 89 ). The

is su es rai se d i n t hi s ap pe al are l arg el y of a leg al na tu re.

II I

Mr. Dav is arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on sh ou ld be rev ers ed
, an d th at

th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on en joi ni ng th e Dep art m en t fro m pu rs ui ng an y pa st du e

ch il d su pp or t o b l i g a ti on s sh ou ld be rei ns ta te d. In hi s vi ew, th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t

co rrec tl y ru le d th at res jud ic at a an d co ll at eral es to pp el ba rred th e D e p art m en t fro m

rel it ig at in g th e is su e of hi s li ab il it y fo r pa st du e ch il d su pp or t be cau se th e ba nk ru pt cy

5co ur t ha d al read y de ci de d th at he ha d no li ab il it y fo r th e ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on s th at

accr ue d p rio r to th e p et it io n d at e.

The Dep art m en t, in tu rn , co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y fo ll owe d th is

co ur t’s pr eced en t by ap pl y in g In re Dia z an d ho ld in g th at co ll at eral es to pp el an d res
jud ic at a can no t ba r it s po st -b an kr up tc y co ll ect io n of no n- di sc ha rg eab le ch il d su pp or t

ob li ga ti on s.

Fo r th e reas on s whi ch fo ll ow, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. The ho ld in g

an d ra ti on al e o f In re Di az , we con cl ud e, ap pl y sq ua rel y he re.

In In re Dia z , th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t fo un d th at th e de bt or was li ab le fo r th e

pr in ci pa l on a ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on bu t di sa ll owe d th e pr e-p et it io n in te res t th at

was owe d. Se e In re Dia z , 64 7 F.3 d at 10 80

. W he n, po st -b an kr up tc y , th e Dep art m en t

of Rev en ue so ug ht to reco ve r th e di sa ll owe d pre -p et it io n in te res t and accr ue d p os tpe ti ti on in te res t, th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t he ld th e Dep art m en t in co nt em pt fo r vi ol at in g

th e di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n an d nu m ero us ot he r or de rs , in cl ud in g th e or de r co nf irming

th e ba nk ru p t c y p l a n

. Id

. at 10 81 –8 2. The di st ric t co ur t affi rm ed th e ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t’s jud gm en t, reas on in g th at , ev en th ou gh a ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on co ul d no t be

di sc ha rg ed in ba nk ru pt cy , res jud ic at a an d co ll at eral es to pp el ba rred th e Dep art m en t

fro m rel it ig at in g th e de bt or ’s li ab il it y fo r th e in te res t on th e ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on

.

W e rev ers e d t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

. W e he ld th at , be cau se do m es ti c su pp or t

6ob li ga ti on s can no t be di sc ha rg ed in ba nk ru pt cy an d be cau se th e di sc ha rg e in jun ct io n

on ly ap pl ie d to di sc ha rg eab le de bt s, it was not a vi ol at io n of th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s

di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n fo r th e Dep art m en t to pu rs ue a de bt owe d fo r a ch il d su p po rt

ob li ga ti on in st at e co ur t aft er th e ba nk ru pt cy pl an was co nf irmed. Id

. at 10 90

. W e

al so he ld th at “ res jud ic at a an d co ll at eral es to pp el do no t pr ecl ud e [th e Dep art m en t]

fro m arg ui ng th e ex te nt of [th e de bt or ’s] pe rs on al li ab il it y fo r ch il d su pp o r t p o st

ba nk ru pt cy ” be cau se “ [t]he co de

. . . m ak es cl ear th at a

. . . d i s c h a r g e d o e s n ot fix

ch il d su pp or t li ab il it ie s m ad e no n- di sc ha rg eab le un de r 11 U.S.C. § 52 3.” Id

. at 10 92

.

To ru le ot he rwis e, we no te d, wou ld al lo w th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t to effe ct iv el y m od ify

a st at e ch il d- su pp or t or de r, em b r o i l i ng th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t in st at e do m es ti c

rel at io ns

. Se e id . at 1 09 2 n .16

.

In re Dia z ap pl ie s with eq ua l forc e he re. In th e co nt ex t of non -d is ch arg eab le

ob li ga ti on s, th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on as to “ li ab il it y ” fo r a de bt is real ly on ly

a de ci si on ab ou t whe th er th e no n- di sc ha rg eab le de bt wil l be pa id by th e ba nk ru pt cy

es ta te as pa rt of th e ba nk ru pt cy pl an

. Se e id

. a t 1 0 9 1 ( “ [T]he on ly is su e be fo re th e

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t

. . . was th e am ou nt of ch il d su pp or t de bt th at wou ld be pa id by th e

b a n k r u p t c y e st at e th ro ug h [th e]

. . . pl an , no t th e to ta l am ou nt of th e ch il d- su pp or t

de bt .”) (em

ph as is in or ig in al ). The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on , th eref or e, can on ly

7pr ecl ud e th e Dep art m en t or ot he r dom es tic supp or t cr ed ito rs fro m rel it ig at in g whe th er

a n on -d is ch arg eab le ob li ga ti on sh ou ld be pa id as p art of t he pl an

.
The re is a m in or di ffer en ce be twee n th e Dep art m en t’s po st ur e in In re Dia z an d

it s po st ur e in th is cas e. Here th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t di d no t act ua ll y de ci de whe th er

Mr. Dav is in fact ha d a pr e- e x i s t i ng ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on or th e am ou nt of th e

ob li ga ti on

. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t si m pl y de te rm in ed th at , reg ard le ss of whe th er an y

am ou nt was owe d, Mr. Dav is was no t li ab le fo r th e ob li ga ti on be cau se no ti m el y

cl ai m ha d be en fil ed

. The sc op e of th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s rev ie w of t h e i s s ue of

li ab il it y fo r no n- di sc h a r g e a b l e ob li ga ti on s is li m it ed to li ab il it y in th e co nt ex t of a

ba nk ru pt cy

pl an

. Se e In re Bell , 2 36 B.R. 42 6, 42 9 (N.D. Ala. 1 99 9)

. As s uc h, t he

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t m ay d i sa ll ow a cl ai m du rin g th e pr oc eed in g, bu t ne it he r th e

di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n no r pr in ci pl es of pr ecl us io n ba r th e Dep art m en t or an ot he r ch il d

su pp or t cr ed it or fro m

pu rs ui ng th e d eb t p os t-b an kr up tc y

.

Mr. Dav is arg ue s th at In re Dia z can be di st in gu is he d in two way s. Fi rs t, In re

Dia z in vo lv ed a p ro ceed in g u nd er Ch ap te r 13 , whi le th is cas e in vo lv ed a di sc ha rg e

un de r Ch ap te r 11

. Seco nd
, In re Dia z co nc ern ed a vi ol at io n of a di sc ha rg e in jun ct io n,

whi le he re th e vi ol at io n of th e di sc ha rg e in jun ct io n was co m

pl et el y irr el ev an t to th e

ru li ng be cau se th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on was ba se d on vi ol at io n of Sect io n 6.2

th e co nf irmed ba nk ru pt cy

pl an . Neit he r of

th es e arg um en ts is pe rs ua si ve

.

8As an in it ia l m at te r, we se e no reas on to ap pl y a di ffer en t ru l e t o Ch ap te r 11

cas es th an we do to Ch ap te r 13 cas es

. Bo th Ch ap te r 11 an d Ch ap te r 13 pr oh ib it th e

di sc ha rg e of do m es ti c su pp or t ob li ga ti on s, se e 11 U.S.C. § 52 3, and ou r de ci si on in

In r e D ia z di d no t hi ng e on an y pr oc ed ur al di ffer en ce be twee n Ch ap te r 11 an d

Ch ap te r 13

. The is su e be fo re th e In re Dia z pa ne l, as he re, was whe th er th e

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on as to li ab il it y on a no n- di sc ha rg eab le ch il d su pp or t de bt

can pr ecl ud e a cred it or fro m p u r s ui ng an y un pa id am ou nt of th at cl ai m po st

ba nk ru pt cy

.

Nor do we fin d pe rs ua si ve th e arg um en t th at th is cas e is di ffer en t fro m In re

Dia z be cau se th e su pp le m en ta l i nju nc ti on was is su ed du e to a v io la ti on of t he pl an

.

Ev e n i f M r

. Dav is ha d al way s as se rte d th at th e Dep art m en t’s act io ns co ns ti tu te d a

vi ol at io n of th e pl an , an d no t of th e di s c h a r g e i n jun ct io n, th e ul ti m at e le ga l is su e

be fo re us wou ld be th e sa m e, be cau se th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t ba se d i t s r u l in g on it s

de te rm in at io n th at th e Dep art m en t was pr ecl ud ed fro m en fo rci ng th e ch il d s u p p o r t

ob li ga ti on du e to co ll at eral est op pe l an d re s ju di cat a.

IV

In r e Dia z co nt ro ls
, an d th eref or e co ll at eral es to pp el an d res jud ic at a do no t

p r ecl ud e th e Dep art m en t fro m pu rs ui ng , po st -b an kr up tc y , a cl ai m fo r n o n

9di sc ha rg eab le ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on s. W e th eref or e affi rm th e de ci si on of t he 2

di st ric t co ur t.

AFFIRMED.

As we did in In re Diaz , 647 F.3d at 1093, we ag ain caution that our holding should 2
not be rea d as a deter

mination as to how much child support (if any ) Mr. Davis owes. Mr. Davis is fre e to dispute the amount of the claim for child support in a state court with jurisdiction. See In re Harell , 754 F.2d 902, 907 n. 9 ( 11th Cir. 1985).

10