Baker v. Baker (In re Baker)

4 Citing cases

  1. Levin v. Carlton (In re Carlton)

    BAP No. CO-15-044 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    In re Taylor, 478 B.R. 419, 427 (10th Cir. BAP 2012), aff'd, 737 F.3d 670 (10th Cir. 2013). Lilly v. Smithson (In re Lilly), No. AZ-11-1185, 2012 WL 603771, at *3-4 (9th Cir. BAP Jan. 31, 2012); Baker v. Baker (In re Baker), No. 12-1302, 2013 WL 2606406, at *3-5 (Bankr. D.N.M. June 11, 2013); Mordas v. Schenkein (In re Schenkein), No. 09-01947, 2010 WL 3219464, at *4-6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2010). The record indicates there is no dispute that the February 2015 Judgment is a debt owed to a spouse or former spouse and is not a "domestic support obligation" under § 523(a)(5).

  2. Reynolds v. Reynolds (In re Reynolds)

    546 B.R. 232 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    r), 478 B.R. 419, 427 (10th Cir. BAP 2012), aff'd, 737 F.3d 670 (10th Cir.2013) ("[E]xceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(15) are construed more liberally than other provisions of § 523."); Prensky v. Clair Greifer LLP, Civ. A. No. 09–6200(FLW), 2010 WL 2674039, at *3 (D.N.J. June 30, 2010) ("The §§ 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) exceptions from discharge are ... construed more liberally than other Section 523 exceptions."); McLain v. McLain (In re McLain), 533 B.R. 735, 741 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2015) ("[T]he policy underlying section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) favors the enforcement of familial obligations over a fresh start for the debtor."); Bernritter v. Bernritter (In re Bernritter), Adv. No. 13–6115, 2014 WL 2718592, at *2 (Bankr.D.Kan. June 10, 2014) ("Although most § 523(a) exceptions to discharge are strictly construed in favor of the debtor, ‘exceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(15) are construed more liberally than other provisions of § 523.’ ") (internal citations omitted); Baker v. Baker (In re Baker), Adv. No. 12–1302 T, 2013 WL 2606406, at *3 (Bankr.D.N.M. June 11, 2013) ("Exceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(15) are construed more liberally than other provisions of § 523."). See also Gilman v. Golio (In re Golio), 393 B.R. 56, 61 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2008) ("The enactment of subsection 523(a)(15) and the increase in the scope of the discharge exception effected by the 2005 amendments, expresses Congress's recognition that the economic protection of dependent spouses and children under state law is no longer accomplished solely through the traditional mechanism of support and alimony payments.") (quoting Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 523.

  3. Hanson ex rel. Ofh v. Brown (In re Brown)

    541 B.R. 906 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2015)   Cited 11 times
    Holding the same debt excepted from discharge under both §§ 523 and

    ”); McLain v. McLain (In re McLain),533 B.R. 735, 741 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2015)(“[T]he policy underlying section 523(a)(5)and (a)(15)favors the enforcement of familial obligations over a fresh start for the debtor.”); Bernritter v. Bernritter (In re Bernritter),Adv. No. 13–6115, 2014 WL 2718592, at *2 (Bankr.D.Kan. June 10, 2014)(“Although most § 523(a)exceptions to discharge are strictly construed in favor of the debtor, ‘exceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(15)are construed more liberally than other provisions of § 523.’ ”) (internal citations omitted); Baker v. Baker (In re Baker),Adv. No. 12–1302 T, 2013 WL 2606406, at *3 (Bankr.D.N.M. June 11, 2013)(“Exceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(15)are construed more liberally than other provisions of § 523.”). See alsoGilman v. Golio (In re Golio),393 B.R. 56, 61 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2008)(“The enactment of subsection 523(a)(15) and the increase in the scope of the discharge exception effected by the 2005 amendments, expresses Congress's recognition that the economic protection of dependent spouses and children under state law is no longer accomplished solely through the traditional mechanism of support and alimony payments.

  4. Tritt v. Tritt (In re Tritt)

    Case No. 12-42446 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2014)   Cited 4 times

    However, such economic examinations and financial comparisons are no longer relevant under §523(a)(15). Baker v. Baker (In re Baker), 2013 WL 2606406 at *3 (Bankr. D.N.M., June 11, 2013). The Court is no longer authorized to balance the economic equities between the parties as a result of the BAPCPA reforms which now provide a greater degree of protection for debts arising from domestic relations litigation.