Contreras-Eckstrom v. Eckstrom

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re ROBERT RAY ECKSTROM,
Debtor.
Case No. 10-60958-CN
Chapter 7
ROSEAN T. CONTRERAS-ECKSTROM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT RAY ECKSTROM,
Defendant.
Adversary No. 11-05029
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I NTRODUCTION
In this adversary proceeding, plaintiff Rosean T. Contreras-Eckstrom asserts that a $3,000.00
sanctions award against her ex-husband is a non-dischargeable obligation under Bankruptcy Code §§
523(a)(5) and (a)(15). Plaintiff contends that this amount, which was awarded by the Santa Clara County
Superior Court in the parties’ dissolution action, is a non-dischargeable domestic support obligation or
other order arising from the parties’ dissolution action. Plaintiff now seeks summary judgment on her
claims. The defendant did not oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the
summary judgment motion.
The following constitutes
the order of the court. Signed November 16, 2011
________________________________________
Charles Novack
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge	________________________________________
Entered on Docket
November 16, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-05029 Doc# 24 Filed: 11/16/11 Entered: 11/16/11 14:25:08 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 California Family Code §2030(a)(1) states in pertinent part that “In a proceeding for
dissolution of marriage ... the court shall ensure that each party has access to legal representation ...
to preserve each party’s rights by ordering, if necessary based on the income and needs assessments,
one party ... to pay to the other party, or to the other party’s attorney, whatever amount is reasonably
necessary for attorney’s fees and for the cost of maintaining or defending the proceeding during the
pendency of the proceeding.”
2
The court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding as a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 157(b)(2)(I). The following represents the court’s conclusions of law as required by Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.
FACTS
The underlying facts in this adversary proceeding are undisputed. 	Defendant filed his Chapter
7 bankruptcy on October 21, 2010. When he filed his Chapter 7, defendant and plaintiff were parties to
a marital dissolution action pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, case no. 1-05-FL-125938
(the “Dissolution Action”). During the Dissolution Action, plaintiff (who was the petitioning party)
sought to compel defendant to pay $27,500.00 of her attorneys fees under California Family Code §
2030.1 While the Santa Clara Superior Court denied the motion for fees under § 2030, it determined that
defendant’s conduct in the course of discovery related to the attorney’s fees motion merited a sanction
award against him. In an order issued on October 15, 2010 (the “October 15th Order”), the Santa Clara
County Superior Court awarded $3,000.00 in sanctions against the defendant, which sum was to be paid
directly to plaintiff’s dissolution attorney, Thomas Bloom. The sanctions were awarded to Bloom under
§ 271of the California Family Code, which states, in pertinent part, that “The court may base an award
of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or
frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation, and where possible, to reduce the cost
of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys. An award of attorney’s fees
and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction ....” The October 15th Order stated that
the $3,000.00 award was “appropriate under the circumstances,” and required defendant to pay this
amount in monthly installments of $300.00, which the Superior Court determined would not “impose an
unreasonable financial burden on him.” Defendant filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy immediately after the
Case: 11-05029 Doc# 24 Filed: 11/16/11 Entered: 11/16/11 14:25:08 Page 2 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	3
October 15th Order was entered, and has not paid any of the sanctions. Plaintiff has submitted a
declaration in support of her motion that the $3,000.00 will be used to reduce Bloom’s outstanding
attorneys fees.
PROCEDURE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The summary judgment standard under F.R.B.P. 7056 is well settled. Summary judgment
should be granted “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23,
106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Only disputes “over facts that might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). This court’s
duty is not to weigh the evidence and decide the truth of the allegations, but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 249. As stated above, the facts herein are undisputed, so this
court need only decide whether they support a non-dischargeable claim under Bankruptcy Code
§§ 523(a)(5) or (a)(15).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Bankruptcy Code contains two provisions which, when taken as a whole, make virtually
all orders arising from a dissolution action non-dischargeable in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. First,
“domestic support obligations” are non-dischargeable under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(5). A
domestic support obligation is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code. Section 101(14)(A)
provides in pertinent part that a domestic support obligation “means a debt that accrues before, on, or
after the date of the order for relief in a case under this title ... that is (A) owed to or recoverable by -
(I) a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor ... in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support
... of such spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor ... without regard to whether such debt is
expressly so designated; ... established ... by reason of applicable provisions of - ... (ii) an order of a
court of record....” While courts have held attorneys fees incurred in the course of establishing
Case: 11-05029 Doc# 24 Filed: 11/16/11 Entered: 11/16/11 14:25:08 Page 3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 See, e.g., In re Chang, 163 F.3d 1138 (9 th Cir. 1998).
4
support or custody awards to be non-dischargeable 2, the Superior Court did not award the sanctions
as in the context of awarding or enforcing a support order. Accordingly, the court denies summary
judgment on plaintiff’s § 523(a)(5) claim for relief.
The court does grant summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for relief under § 523(a)(15).
Section 523(a)(15) provides in pertinent part that obligations owed to a “spouse, former spouse or
child of the debtor and not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred in the course of a
divorce of separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a
court of record ....” is non-dischargeable. 	The October 15 th Order satisfies these elements. First, the
$3,000 sanction award, while awarded to Bloom, is an obligation owed to plaintiff. Direct payments
to an attorney may be deemed to be an obligation to the former spouse where it would be exalting
form over substance to fail to treat it as such. See In re Chang, 163 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff’s declaration unequivocally states that the sanction will directly benefit her, as it will be
applied to Bloom’s attorney’s fee bill. Accordingly, the sanction award is an obligation owed to
plaintiff under § 523(a)(15). See In re Tarone, 434 B.R. 41, 49 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010). Since the
Defendant incurred this debt in the course of the Dissolution Action, the $3,000.00 sanctions award is
non-dischargeable under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(15).
Plaintiff shall submit an appropriate judgment for the court’s review and signature.
Good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.
**** END OF ORDER ****
Case: 11-05029 Doc# 24 Filed: 11/16/11 Entered: 11/16/11 14:25:08 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	5
COURT SERVICE LIST
Thomas Bloom
Law Office of Thomas M. Bloom
401 Alberto Way, Suite 1, Office #7
Los Gatos, CA 95032
H. Jayne Ahn
Law Office of H. Jayne Ahn
2005 De La Cruz Blvd. #281
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Case: 11-05029 Doc# 24 Filed: 11/16/11 Entered: 11/16/11 14:25:08 Page 5 of 5