McCloskey
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION. The Court determines that the bankruptcy court committed noerror. Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER J. MCCLOSKEY,
Appellant,
VS.
ANNE MIRIAM MCCLOSKEY, et al,
Appellees.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
December 30, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-742
ADVERSARY NO. 06-03012
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
This case comes to the Court on appeal from the appellees, Anne M. McCloskey and
Michael A. Craig, second motion for summary judgment that arose in the appellant’s,
Christopher J. McCloskey, bankruptcy proceedings. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 158(a) and, therefore, proceeds to address the issue(s) raised by the appellant’s appeal.
By way of background, a state appellate court entered a reformed final judgment
modifying an award of $50,398 as an award incurred in conservatorship proceedings between the
McClosekys. See McCloskey v. McCloskey, 2010 WL 1037947 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.]
2010, no pet.).
community debt.
The appellant filed for bankruptcy seeking to discharge the award as a
An adversary proceeding was filed and pursued by the appellees in the
appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding, challenging the dischargeability of the award.
Pursuant to
orders from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Amended
Memorandum and Order granting the appellees’ second motion for summary judgment, holding
that the award is non-dischargeable. From this judgment the appellant takes an appeal.
1/3
II.
This Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court correctly ruled when it held that the
award was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(b)(2) and 523(a)(5). Section 523(a)(5)
provides that a: “discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title
does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for a domestic support obligation.” The
Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court should be affirmed and,
therefore, rests its decision on the Bankruptcy Court’s Amended Memorandum [Doc. No. 142],
incorporated herein by reference, and on settled precedent.
III.
The appellant raises innumerable claims that this Court views as “side issues” that are
resolved by the Court’s ruling on the two issues addressed. The Court is also of the opinion that
the issues raised by the appellant are frivolous, in that the statutes and case law are settled in this
area. History and the logic of the law leaves only inconsequential doubts.
IV.
The Court addresses the issues that the Court determines are salient and dispositive:
(a)
The divorce decree, that is the genesis of the appellant’s litigation, became final
on September 21, 2000. After appeals and reformation of the final decree on June
12, 2003, the appellee received an award of $50,398 that had been incurred in
protecting conservatorship and support of the children.
It is the Court’s view that the judgment became final and unappealable on or
about July 13, 2003. Therefore, any effort to modify or set that judgment aside
here violates the collateral estoppel rule, res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman
Doctrine. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 163 U.S. 413 (1923). Moreover, neither
the reviewing state court nor federal trial and appellate courts have the power to
modify or reverse a state court judgment. See In re Eriewine, 349 F.3d 205, 209
(5th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the state court judgment stands as finally modified
and entered.
(b)
2/3
Did the Bankruptcy Court commit error when it refused to discharge the award as
a community debt? The answer is found in well settled precedent that bars family
obligations from discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. See Wetmore v. Markoc,
196 U.S. 68, 74-76 (1904); 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5); Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d
940, 941 (5th Cir. 1993). The Bankruptcy Court and state courts’ characterization
of the award as a support obligation means that the award is non-dischargeable.
Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in its findings, or
commit error by ruling contrary to law.
Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that the bankruptcy court committed no
error. Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
SIGNED on this 30th day of December, 2015.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
3/3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?