Haddad v. Haddad

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In Re: 	*
Muhsen A Haddad, 	* 	Case No. 	05-17608PM
* 	Chapter 	7
*
Debtor(s) 	*
************************************* 	*
Marilou Haddad, 	* 	Adv. Proc. No. 	05-01351PM
*
*
Plaintiff(s), 	*
vs. 	*
Muhsen A Haddad, 	*
*
*
Defendant(s) 	*
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the court is the motion for judgment by default filed by the plaintiff, Marilou
Haddad. While the clerk has entered a default as to the defendant, the court will deny the motion
for default judgment without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint within 28 days.
The pertinent parts of the complaint, paragraphs 5 through 9, relate that on October 23,
1998, the parties were divorced by an order of the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois.
Subsequent to the entry of the judgment of divorce, the plaintiff was granted a monetary award
Date signed August 10, 2005
Entered: August 11, 2005 Case 05-01351 Doc 16 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 3

of $391,000.00 for her interest in the marital property. The judgment was subsequently enrolled
in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, on November 10, 2003. The plaintiff
requests a judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) for judgment in the sum of $391,000.00,
plus Illinois statutory interest of 9% per annum from the date of judgment, January 16, 2003.
While this pleading would be sufficient under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005, that becomes effective as to cases filed on or after October 17,
2005, it does not plead a cause of action as the law exists today. Section 523(a)(15) provides:
(a) 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 –
(15) not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred by the debtor in
the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation
agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, a determination
made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit unless–
(A) the debtor does not have the ability to pay such debt from income or
property of the debtor not reasonably necessary to be expended for the
maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor and, if
the debtor is engaged in a business, for the payment of expenditures
necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such
business; or
(B) discharging such debt would result in a benefit to the debtor that
outweighs the detrimental consequences to a spouse, former spouse, or
child of the debtor[.]
The plaintiff failed to plead that the debt owed meets the requirements for exception to
discharge.
As pointed out in the case of Ryan v. Homecomings Financial Network, 253 F.3d 778,
780-81 (CA4 2001), the defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations
of fact but such admission does not amount to an absolute confession by the defendant of his
liability and of the plaintiff’s right to recover. What has been pleaded simply does not support
the relief sought in this action. See also In re Carroll, 237 B.R. 872, 873 (BC Md. 1999); In re
Goycochea, 192 B.R. 847, 848 (BC Md. 1996). As pointed out in the Carroll case, a default
judgment requires an underlying complaint that supports the claim for relief. There must be a
sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Case 05-01351 Doc 16 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 3

cc: 	Marilou Haddad
2305 18th St., NW, #204
Washington, DC 20009
Norman B. King
King and King
8905 Fairview Rd., Ste. 501
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Muhsen A Haddad
2305 18th St., NW, #204
Washington, DC 20009
END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case 05-01351 Doc 16 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 3