Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I have seen cases, generally before 2005, where the Court made it clear that the payee of the attorney fee award was irrelevant. To be a little more specific, in those days you only had (a)(5) and Orders made under 2030 sometimes directed the debtor to pay the attorney, not the spouse. Most Courts did not distinguish between the spouse and the spouse's attorney - they called it support and applied (a)(5). You might be able to make the same argument here based on (a)(15).
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Since 1997
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
206 N. Jackson St., #201
Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 * Fax: 818-507-6800
Toll Free: 888-BK PRO 4U (888-257-7648)
www.TilemLaw.com
[square-facebook-24] [square-twitter-24] [square-linkedin-24] [square-google-plus-24]
[cid:image005.png@01D0C939.A54B78D0] [cid:image006.png@01D0C939.A54B78D0] [SL] [AVVO] [av]
The pages comprising this transmission may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from Law Offices of David A. Tilem. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange and correct this transmission.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

David's point is well taken. In this case, because the order was originally payable to the atty, (a)(15) would not apply to that order as it covers non DSO debt incurred in a disso payable "to a spouse, former spouse, or child." This is to be contrasted with the FL 2030 atty fee awards, where the courts recognize that altho they are often payable to the atty, they are in the nature of support. This is not the case here.
As the debt was discharged, I cannot see how changing the order's payee to the wife to fit under (a)(15) would or could revive it.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Ph: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
Email: pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I've not been following the entire chain, but don't forget to consider 523(a)(15)
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Since 1997
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
206 N. Jackson St., #201
Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 * Fax: 818-507-6800
Toll Free: 888-BK PRO 4U (888-257-7648)
www.TilemLaw.com
[square-facebook-24] [square-twitter-24] [square-linkedin-24] [square-google-plus-24]
[cid:image005.png@01D0C939.A54B78D0] [cid:image006.png@01D0C939.A54B78D0] [SL] [AVVO] [av]
The pages comprising this transmission may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from Law Offices of David A. Tilem. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange and correct this transmission.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Steve:
The typical atty fee award in FL is under Fam C. 2030. These have consistently been characterized in BK as DSOs, making them non-dischargeable under 523(a)(5).
While I have not researched any 271 sanction cases, it would be somewhere near impossible to make the language of that section fit into the DSO definition. As such, I agree that it is non-dischargeable. Getting the FL court to change the payee does not change the nature of the sanction, which is not a DSO. As to the language of non-dischargeability, the lack of notice makes that order voidable.
I think these types of sanctions could be non-dischargeable under 523(a)(6), but the creditor did not timely make that assertion. I think you have a clear discharge violation.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Ph: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
Email: pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi Pat,
Sorry for that unclear point.
He was ordered to pay her attorney fees. It was a sanction under FC 271 payable directly to her attorney.
Thank you
Steve

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Steve:
I am not clear on your facts. Which spouse was ordered to pay attorney fees to which attorney?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Ph: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
Email: pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.