Court Opinion

ID: 9695490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:20:54.019511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.260977
License: Public Domain

JONES, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
In this case, the Debtor brought a § 523(a)(5) action after the case was closed to determine the dischargeability of spousal support arrearages. The court below determined that the debt was dischargeable on the set of facts in existence on the date of the hearing. Due to the death of the Debtor’s former spouse, the right to the arrearages was assigned by operation of law to her estate. I agree with the majority that since this assignment occurred post-petition, and moreover after the entry of discharge, the arrearages are not dis-chargeable.
However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the lower court’s denial of summary judgment on the issue of whether the arrearages were part of a property settlement. While the trial judge did state that in his opinion the debt is properly characterized as a property set*618tlement rather than alimony, he did not fully consider or even rule on that issue. Rather, the judge expressed no ruling on either party’s motion for summary judgment on this issue. In addition, the record clearly shows that the focus of the hearing and the supplemental briefing was on the assignment issue alone. Because the trial court did not fully explore the characterization of the arrearages issue, I dissent from the majority’s holding that the court erred in not granting summary judgment in favor of the former spouse’s estate on grounds that the arrearages constitute spousal support.1 This issue should first be explored and ruled upon by the trial court.
In sum, I concur with the majority that the assignment issue should be determined as of the date the petition was filed, rather than at a subsequent hearing. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on the issue of property settlement versus alimony. While the judge below expressed an opinion that the obligation appeared to be a property settlement, he declined to fully consider or rule on that issue. Consequently, I would remand the matter for further consideration.

. It should be noted, with some irony, that the former spouse’s family claims rights to all of the arrearages due her estate and, thus, as the Debt- or has custody of the couple’s two children, none of the "support” arrearages will go to the children.