Opinion ID: 1135189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: classification of the claim

Text: A determination as to whether a creditor holds a community claim is resolved by an examination of state law. In re Sweitzer, 111 B.R. 792, 793 (Bankr. W.D.Wis.1990). Nevada defines community property as all property, other than that stated in NRS 123.130, acquired after marriage by either husband or wife, or both, limited by exceptions which are not relevant to the instant matter. NRS 123.220. Although all property acquired after marriage is presumed to be community property, this presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Forrest v. Forrest, 99 Nev. 602, 604-5, 668 P.2d 275, 277 (1983). The property that Norwest seeks to reach is Nellie's wages. The wages of either spouse during marriage are considered to be community funds regardless of which spouse earns the greater income or which spouse supports the community. Robison v. Robison, 100 Nev. 668, 670, 691 P.2d 451, 453 (1984). The standard for determining whether a debt is community or separate entails factually discerning the intent of the lender when granting the loan. Schulman v. Schulman, 92 Nev. 707, 716-17, 558 P.2d 525, 531 (1976); Hogevoll v. Hogevoll, 59 Cal.App.2d 188, 138 P.2d 693, 697 (1943). This standard is further discussed in In re Marriage of Stoner, 147 Cal. App.3d 858, 195 Cal.Rptr. 351 (1983): The character of [the] property acquired upon credit during marriage is determined according to the intent of the lender to rely upon the separate property of the purchaser or upon a community asset. ( In re Marriage of Aufmuth [89 Cal.App.3d 446, 152 Cal.Rptr. 668, 674 (1979) ].) A presumption exists that the proceeds of a loan acquired during marriage are community property. Said presumption is rebuttable upon a showing that the loan was extended on the faith of existing property belonging to the acquiring spouse. (Citation omitted.) Id. at 863-64, 195 Cal.Rptr. at 354-55. A review of the record reveals, as noted above, that both Nellie and William were signatories to the relevant loan documents. In addition, the loan application indicates that the salaries of both spouses were considered in the granting of the loan. Finally, the security agreement describes what is indisputably community property as the collateral which secured the loan. [2] There is no indication that Norwest relied on any property other than community property in securing or granting the loan to the Lawvers. Moreover, Norwest filed a claim in William's bankruptcy which encompassed all of the Lawvers' nonexempt community assets. We therefore conclude that the transaction clearly created a community debt. Norwest now seeks to execute against community property belonging to the Lawvers in the form of Nellie's wages. The language of 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(3) prohibits a creditor from seeking satisfaction of a community debt by resorting to the debtor's property through an action against the non-bankrupt spouse commenced after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment based upon a finding that Norwest was seeking to impose a charge against the Lawvers' community property in violation of the injunction provided in 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(3). For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the district court granting summary judgment. [3]