Filed: Nov. 01, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 1, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10509 Summary Calendar In the matter of: JACQUELINE LEE SONNTAG Debtor. JACQUELINE LEE SONNTAG, Appellant, versus ELDON PRAX, Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division USDC No. 4:04-CV-145-A - Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 1, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10509 Summary Calendar In the matter of: JACQUELINE LEE SONNTAG Debtor. JACQUELINE LEE SONNTAG, Appellant, versus ELDON PRAX, Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division USDC No. 4:04-CV-145-A - Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 1, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10509
Summary Calendar
In the matter of: JACQUELINE LEE SONNTAG
Debtor.
JACQUELINE LEE SONNTAG,
Appellant,
versus
ELDON PRAX,
Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division
USDC No. 4:04-CV-145-A
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant, Jacqueline Sonntag (“Sonntag”), appeals
the district court’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s
determination that attorney fees incurred during a child custody
dispute between Sonntag and her former husband are non-
dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). We affirm.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. After the dissolution
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
of Sonntag’s marriage to Plaintiff-Appellee, Eldon Prax (“Prax”),
Prax was awarded custody of the parties’ two children. The state
court ordered Sonntag, the noncustodial parent, to pay child
support and to reimburse Prax for half of the medical bills
incurred by the children for which insurance coverage was not
available. Sonntag then filed an unsuccessful suit to modify the
custody arrangement ordered in the final decree of divorce, which
resulted in the court ordering Sonntag to pay Prax attorney fees
of $49,000 plus interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.
Subsequently, Sonntag filed a petition for relief under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Prax then filed an adversary
proceeding seeking declaratory judgment that Sonntag’s
obligations to pay child support, medical costs, and the attorney
fees awarded in the custody suit were non-dischargeable under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). Sonntag did not contest that her obligation
to pay child support and medical costs were non-dischargeable,
but she denied that the claim for attorney fees and interest were
non-dischargeable. Prax moved for summary judgment, and the
bankruptcy court granted that motion. The district court
affirmed.
We review the district court’s summary judgment award de
novo. Hudson v. Raggio & Raggio, Inc. (In re Hudson),
107 F.3d
355, 356 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Waggoner v. Garland,
987 F.2d
1160, 1163 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the parties do not dispute
the pertinent facts, we must determine only whether Prax is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
id.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), any debt owed “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” is non-dischargeable. Attorney fees
awarded in connection with a child custody dispute are for the
benefit of the parties’ children, as the purpose of such a
proceeding is to determine who can provide the best home and
environment for the children at issue. In re
Hudson, 107 F.3d at
357; see also Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak),
986 F.2d 940,
941 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, such debts fall under the exception to
dischargeability outlined in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).
Here, Sonntag’s obligation to pay attorney fees falls
squarely within the exception to dischargeability. The amount
owed to her former spouse is for the support and maintenance of
the parties’ children and was incurred in connection with an
order of a court of record, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).
Accordingly, Sonntag’s obligation to pay attorney fees is non-
dischargeable, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.