## Facts

- Michael Earnest and Constance Dodson separated and remained apart for nearly two years.
- At separation, Earnest moved out of the marital home, leaving Dodson in the home with the parties’ two minor children, and moved into an apartment with his girlfriend.
- During the separation, Dodson worked two jobs and paid all household expenses and the children’s daycare costs; Earnest provided no support.
- Earnest and Dodson agreed the marital home should be sold and that it had no equity.
- To prevent foreclosure during the separation, Dodson paid $61,461 toward the mortgage; Earnest paid nothing.
- Earnest later filed a petition for divorce from Dodson.
- After trial, the state court found the parties had comparable incomes and entered a dissolution judgment that:
  - equitably divided the marital property,
  - awarded Dodson exclusive use and possession of the home, and
  - ordered Earnest to (i) reimburse Dodson for one-half of the mortgage payments she made during separation and (ii) pay one-half of the monthly mortgage from the time of dissolution until the home was sold.
- Earnest then filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and sought to discharge the reimbursement obligation and the continuing mortgage-sharing obligation.

## Issues

1. Whether Earnest’s divorce-judgment obligations to reimburse Dodson for one-half of the separation-period mortgage payments and to pay one-half of the ongoing mortgage until sale were “in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support” under federal bankruptcy law.
2. If the obligations were not “support,” whether they were still nondischargeable in Chapter 13 as divorce-related debts owed to a former spouse.

## Decision

- The bankruptcy court concluded the divorce-judgment mortgage obligations were not dischargeable in Earnest’s Chapter 13 case.
- The court treated the obligations as support in substance (a domestic support obligation), based on their function in providing and preserving housing for Dodson and the children.
- Even if characterized as arising from the divorce decree as part of the parties’ marital obligations rather than classic support, the obligations were still excepted from discharge in Chapter 13 as debts to a former spouse incurred in connection with a divorce.

## Legal Principles

- Bankruptcy law, not state-law labels, governs whether a divorce-related obligation is “in the nature of support”; courts look to the function the obligation was meant to serve.
- Obligations tied to keeping or maintaining housing for a former spouse and minor children can be support when they operate to meet basic living needs, even if framed as reimbursement or payment of a mortgage.
- Domestic support obligations are excepted from discharge in Chapter 13.
- Debts owed to a spouse or former spouse that are incurred in connection with a divorce decree may also be excepted from discharge in Chapter 13, even when not classified as domestic support.

## Conclusion

In *In re Earnest*, the bankruptcy court held that Earnest could not discharge, through Chapter 13, the divorce-judgment obligations requiring him to reimburse Dodson for one-half of the mortgage payments she made during separation and to pay one-half of the continuing mortgage until the marital home was sold, because the obligations functioned as support and, in any event, arose from the divorce decree and were not dischargeable in Chapter 13.


In re Earnest, 2013 WL 6504359 (2013)