Opinion ID: 77691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Debt Dischargeability

Text: 48 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) disallows discharge of a debt: 49 to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse or child, in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, . . . but not to the extent that — . . . 50 (B) such a debt includes a liability designated as alimony, maintenance, or support, unless such liability is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support. 51 We have held that federal law, not state law, governs a dischargeability of domestic obligations determination. See In re Harrell, 754 F.2d 902, 904-05 (11th Cir.1985). A debt is in the nature of support, and therefore nondischargeable, if at the time of its creation the parties intended the obligation to function as support . . . . Cummings v. Cummings, 244 F.3d 1263, 1265 (11th Cir.2001). [T]he party seeking to hold the debt nondischargeable has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties intended the obligation as support . . . . Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). 52 The Florida DOR, which argued that the debt was nondischargeable, presented no evidence to the bankruptcy court that the Hawaii debt was in the nature of support. The Florida DOR also asserts that the testimony of the debtor clearly showed the monies owed were for support of his wife and children paid by the State of Hawaii. Omine testified that the Hawaii debt was not in the nature of support. The Florida DOR, however, presented no evidence as to the intent of the parties. Instead, it argues that we should not disregard Hawaiian law that provides that the welfare payments made in cases such as this one are support obligations and non-dischargeable. 7 Though a court cannot rely solely on the label used by the parties, see id., intent cannot be imputed or proven with the introduction of a state statute on appeal. In light of Omine's testimony that supported a dischargeability determination and the lack of evidence presented by the Florida DOR, the district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that the Hawaii debt was not in the nature of support, and was therefore dischargeable.