Street v. Street

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: 	)
)
CHERLEE DAWN STREET, 	) 	Case No. 3:25-bk-00898
) 	Chapter 7
Debtor. 	) 	Judge Nancy B. King
___________________________________ 	)
) 	Adversary No: 3:25-ap-900261
CHERLEE DAWN STREET, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
NICHOLAS STREET, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Nicholas Street’s (“Ex-husband”) Motion for Summary
Judgment seeking judgment as a matter of law that the obligations owed by his ex-wife, Cherlee
1 On December 3, 2025, Street v. Street (In re Street), Adv. No. 3:25-ap-90057, was consolidated with the
above-styled adversary. [Pretrial Order, Dkt. No. 13].
THIS ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED ON THE DOCKET.
PLEASE SEE DOCKET FOR ENTRY DATE.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED 16th day of March, 2026
Nancy B. King
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case 3:25-ap-90026 Doc 18 Filed 03/16/26 Entered 03/16/26 15:46:12 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
Dawn Street (“Ex-wife”), are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5)2 and (a)(15). Ex-
wife filed a response in opposition, and both parties supported their positions with conflicting
affidavits. For the reasons that follow, Ex-husband’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from the parties’ divorce decree dated September 8, 2022. Neither the
Motion nor the Response included a factual recitation, but both parties included affidavits claiming
that the debts at issue are or are not nondischargeable.
Ex-husband alleges that the debt is nondischargeable as a divorce-related obligation under
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The obligation of $11,924.42 is a post-divorce judgment against Ex-wife
resulting from certain expenses related to the court-ordered sale of the parties’ marital home.
Ex-wife contends the obligations are not in the nature of support and are dischargeable,
and she further asserts that there is a genuine dispute of material facts as to the character and
dischargeability of the debts. Although Ex-husband disputes those assertions and seeks to declare
the debt nondischargeable, his Motion cites law from an incorrect jurisdiction and provides no
statement of undisputed material facts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, made applicable in Bankruptcy by Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7056, governs a request for summary judgment and provides that “[t]he
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
2 Ex-husband raises 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) as a basis for relief for the first time in his Motion for Summary
Judgment. This claim was not raised in the Complaint and is not listed as an issue in the Joint Pretrial
Statement. As such, summary judgment based on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) is neither appropriate nor available
to Ex-husband, and the Court will only address whether summary judgment should be granted based on 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) in this Order.
Case 3:25-ap-90026 Doc 18 Filed 03/16/26 Entered 03/16/26 15:46:12 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3
party requesting summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The opposing party must
then “come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Mounts v.
Grand Trunk W. R.R., 198 F.3d 578, 580 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
After a thorough review, the Court must deny the Motion for Summary Judgment. Ex-
husband’s affidavit contends that the judgment resulted from payments he made to maintain
housing and basic living conditions and were intended to “function as financial support.” [Motion
for Summary Judgment, Adv. Dkt. No. 15, Exhibit 1, at 2, ¶ 6]. Ex-wife’s affidavit asserts that any
payments were “not based on need, support, or maintenance, but rather on allocation of marital
expenses and assets.” [Debtor’s Affidavit, Adv. Dkt. No. 17, at 2, ¶ 9].
The Court finds that Ex-husband’s Motion, which is deficient as a proper pleading by not
including law from the correct jurisdiction and by its overall paucity of information, did not show
that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, material factual disputes exist
regarding the nature and purpose of the obligations at issue under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ex-husband’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will hold the second pretrial conference as
scheduled for April 7, 2026, and provided for in the Pretrial Order. [Pretrial Order, Adv. Dkt.
No. 13].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THIS ORDER WAS SIGNED AND ENTERED ELECTRONICALLY
AS INDICATED AT THE TOP OF THE FIRST PAGE
Case 3:25-ap-90026 Doc 18 Filed 03/16/26 Entered 03/16/26 15:46:12 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3