In re Chamberlain
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
721 Fed. App’x 826 (2018)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Stephen Chamberlain (defendant) and Judith Chamberlain (plaintiff) divorced after a 21-year marriage. The Chamberlains had three children—John, Sarah, and Kate—whom Judith stayed home to raise while Stephen worked. The support provisions of the Chamberlains’ divorce agreement required Stephen to pay the three children’s college costs because of his substantially greater income. In 2011, after Stephen failed to pay Kate’s and Sarah’s college expenses, Judith petitioned for enforcement. In a consent order, Stephen agreed to repay Kate’s and Sarah’s student loans. In 2014, Judith filed another enforcement petition after Stephen failed to pay John’s college expenses. In another consent order, Stephen agreed to pay John’s college expenses up to a cap of $14,000 per year. However, after Judith initiated collection proceedings, Stephen filed for bankruptcy. Judith filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings arguing that the outstanding amounts Stephen owed toward the children’s college expenses constituted a domestic-support obligation (DSO) that could not be discharged in bankruptcy. Stephen countered, arguing that his obligation to pay for the children’s college expenses could not be classified as a DSO because it was not an obligation in the nature of maintenance, alimony, or child support. The bankruptcy court agreed with Judith and held that Stephen’s obligation to pay the children’s college expenses could not be discharged. Stephen appealed to the district court, which affirmed. Stephen then appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bacharach, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.