From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peters v. Hennenhoeffer

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 18, 1992
964 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1992)

Summary

affirming district court's conclusion that fees owed to attorney for representation of debtor's minor son in custody dispute were nondischargeable under § 523 as they were in nature of support

Summary of this case from In re Kline

Opinion

No. 1345, Docket 92-5001.

Argued April 23, 1992.

Decided May 18, 1992.

Bernard J. Peters, appellant pro se.

Richard L. Koral, White Plains, N.Y. (Fink Weinberger P.C., of counsel), for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Before OAKES, Chief Judge, KEARSE and WALKER, Circuit Judges.


Bernard J. Peters, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Gerard L. Goettel, Judge, affirming a judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Howard Schwartzberg, Judge, which held that fees owed to attorney Hennenhoeffer for his representation of Peters' son were in the nature of support and thus nondischargeable debts within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) (1988). Substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Goettel's opinion, 133 B.R. 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), including his reliance on In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1981) ("An award of attorney's fees may be essential to a spouse's ability to sue or defend a matrimonial action and thus a necessary under the law. . . . [D]ischargeability must be determined by the substance of the liability rather than its form."), we affirm.


Summaries of

Peters v. Hennenhoeffer

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 18, 1992
964 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1992)

affirming district court's conclusion that fees owed to attorney for representation of debtor's minor son in custody dispute were nondischargeable under § 523 as they were in nature of support

Summary of this case from In re Kline

affirming substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion

Summary of this case from In re Chang

affirming substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion

Summary of this case from In re Staggs

relying on In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1989)

Summary of this case from Skipp v. Brigham (In re Skipp)

following Spong and holding that dischargeability must be determined based on substance of liability

Summary of this case from Kassicieh v. Battisti (In re Kassicieh)
Case details for

Peters v. Hennenhoeffer

Case Details

Full title:IN RE BERNARD J. PETERS, DEBTOR. BERNARD J. PETERS, APPELLANT, v. JAMES A…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: May 18, 1992

Citations

964 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

In re Akamine

First, on appeal, a bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Fed.R.Bankr. 8013; In re…

In re Ramirez

The Debtor expressly conceded in her response to the Peck objection to confirmation that, if the debt is in…