Case Name: In re Karen Anastasia WILSON, Debtor. CITY OF MEMPHIS, Plaintiff, v. Karen Anastasia WILSON, Defendant
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-04-27
Citations: 31 B.R. 191
Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 82-23938; Adv. No. 83-0318
Parties: In re Karen Anastasia WILSON, Debtor. CITY OF MEMPHIS, Plaintiff, v. Karen Anastasia WILSON, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
In re Karen Anastasia WILSON, Debtor. CITY OF MEMPHIS, Plaintiff, v. Karen Anastasia WILSON, Defendant.
Bankruptcy No. 82-23938.
Adv. No. 83-0318.
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee, W.D.
April 27, 1983.
Robert K. Kisber, Memphis, Tenn., plaintiff City of Memphis.
Ben Sissman, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-debtor.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
DAVID S. KENNEDY, Bankruptcy Judge.
In this adversary proceeding the plaintiff, City of Memphis, has filed a complaint against the defendant, Karen Anastasia Wilson, the above-named Chapter 7 debtor ("Debtor"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), seeking, inter alia, a nondis-chargeable judgment on account of unpaid traffic violation fines.
The relevant facts are undisputed. On October 6, 1982, plaintiff obtained a judg ment for city traffic fines in the amount of $100.00. On November 3, 1982, the Debtor filed an original petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff was listed as a creditor in the Debtor's Schedule A-3. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant adversary proceeding.
The sole and limited issue for judicial determination here is whether or not a liability to pay traffic fines is dischargeable.
Unlike the Bankruptcy Code, the former Bankruptcy Act made no specific provision concerning the dischargeability of fines and penalties due to a governmental unit, but certain principles became well settled in ^ this respect. Fines for violation of law were not provable under the former Act and therefore were held to be not dis-chargeable. In re Tingling, 2 B.C.D. 183 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1976); Collier On Bankruptcy, Vol. 3, Para. 523.17 (15th Ed.).
§ 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"A discharge under section 727 . of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt . to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.... "
The Bankruptcy Law Manual (Weintraub and Resnick), Para. 3.09[8], provides in pertinent part, as follows:
"[a]ny obligation to pay a fine, penalty, or forfeiture owed to a governmental unit will remain unaffected by the case. Liabilities to pay traffic fines, for example, are not dischargeable." (Emphasis added.)
Based on all the foregoing and the case record as a whole, the court finds, under the circumstances, that a liability to pay a traffic fine is nondischargeable.
This "Memorandum" shall constitute findings of fact and conclusions of law under Bankruptcy Rule 752(a).
. Although the instant adversary proceeding involved other issues, this Memorandum is limited to this sole issue.
. The concept of provability contained in § 63 of the former Bankruptcy Act was not retained under the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(4).
.Under 11 U.S.C. § 101(21) "governmental unit" is defined as including a "municipality" such as the plaintiff here.