WPC 8#  U N+ %y 0% 0w@b 4  J F 0DU  N_ a mc Bz 0J 0T 0^5 0h 0r 0|m 0 0o 1u 0dt AQb) 0D1 0@u 0D D/ B( D3EU >xU*B)DC  AMLU*v~>vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'() Z 6Times New Roman Regular($74dd7TRY3' LetterY3' Letter 3' Letter 3' LetterT  }74}7!!    (n(22:$ !7kdd7TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T  hkh!     XXyXk   `   0   EDD[e Ӏ_#3|xLeMastersClinnardClinardlemasters v. lemasters - opinion $1 ' IB011C2 (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UP Pd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X "#$&C<< C- -(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ' dxd d(((('dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd #1C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#..\R3'\       ""  33   YYY FILED3XNovember19,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#..\R3'\       $   X .X         _ActofApril21,1994,ch.987,2,1994Tenn.Pub.Acts1007,1009.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . ..#//d#\R3'\       ݛ_       X \RA'\\RA'\7kdd7.Ԝ R241A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE. LARRY_LeMASTERS_,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   )      )       ) DavidsonCircuitVS.      ) No.96D82      )      ) AppealNo.LINDA_LeMASTERS_ԀROSS,  ) 01A019702CV00070      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEMURIELROBINSON,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellee:    FortheDefendant/Appellant:DanielC._Masten_      Charles_Galbreath_RichardD.Taylor,Jr.     Nashville,TennesseeV.A.(Bo)_Melton_,Jr.Nashville,Tennessee@ .AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED .        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  .@ OPINION . Thisappealconcernsthe_enforceability_ԀofanIndianajudgmentforunpaidchildsupport.ThejudgmentcreditorfiledanactiontoregisterandenforcethejudgmentintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty.Thejudgmentdebtorcontestedthe_enforceability_Ԁofthedebtonthegroundthatithadbeendischargedinbankruptcy.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtheldthatthejudgmenthadnotbeendischarged,andthejudgmentdebtorappealed.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsconclusionthatthedebtforunpaidchildsupportwasnot_dischargeable_Ԁinbankruptcy.@ I.  Larry_LeMasters_ԀandLinda_LeMasters_ԀRossweredivorcedinIndianainSeptember1987.Mr._LeMasters_Ԁreceivedcustodyofthepartiesdaughter,andMs.RosswasdirectedtopayMr._LeMasters_Ԁchildsupport.Apparently,Ms.Rossdidnotliveuptoherchildsupportobligationorotherobligationsinthedivorcedecree.OnSeptember25,1989,afterthepartiesdaughterbecameemancipatedbymarriage,Mr._LeMasters_ԀobtainedajudgmentagainstMs.RossintheSuperiorCourtforMarionCounty,Indianafor$1,140inunpaidchildsupport,$2,089.54payabletoMr._LeMasters_Ԁasaresultofthedivisionofthemaritalproperty,and$450forattorneysfeesincurredtocollectthechildsupportarrearage. ApproximatelyonemonthafterMr._LeMaster_sobtainedhisIndianajudgment,Ms.RossfiledaChapter7bankruptcypetitionintheUnitedStatesBankruptcyCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee.OnJuly31,1990,thebankruptcycourtenteredanorderdischargingallofMs.Rosss_dischargeable_debts,includingthe$2,089.54debtarisingoutofthedivisionofthemaritalpropertyinthepartiesdivorce.TherecordcontainsnoevidencethatthebankruptcycourtalsodischargedMs.Rossschildsupportdebt. OnJanuary9,1996,Mr._LeMasters_ԀfiledacomplaintintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountytoenforceportionsoftheIndianajudgmentrelatingtothechildsupportarrearageandtheattorneysfees.Ms.RossrespondedthatthisdebthadbeendischargedinbankruptcyandthatshewasentitledtoasetoffforthevalueofpropertythatMr._LeMasters_Ԁhadnotdeliveredtoher.ShealsoassertedthatMr._LeMasters_sclaimwasfrivolousandrequested$100,000incompensatoryandpunitivedamages.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonOctober7,1996,awardingMr._LeMasters_Ԁ$2,221.54,representingthe$1,140Indianajudgmentforchildsupportarrearageplustenpercentinterest.Shortlythereafter,thesheriffseizedjewelryandcashfromMs.RosssufficienttosatisfyMr._LeMasters_sjudgment.InresponsetoMs.Rosssmotiontostaythesaleofherjewelry,thetrialcourtdirectedtheclerkofthetrialcourttoholdtheseizedjewelryandcashpendingtheoutcomeofthisappeal.@ II.  Eventhoughsheconcedesthatthe$1,140debtwasoriginallyforchildsupport,Ms.RossarguesthatunderTennesseelawtheemancipationofthepartiesdaughtertransformedher_nondischargeable_Ԁchildsupportdebtintoanordinary,_dischargeable_Ԁdebt.Thisargumentcontainstwosignificantflaws.First,itreflectsamisreadingoftheTennesseecases,andsecond,itignoresthatthe_dischargeability_Ԁissueisamatteroffederal,notstate,law. TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasdecidedtwocasesinvolvingtheproceduresforenforcingjudgmentsforpastunpaidchildsupport.Thecourtemphasizedinbothcasesthataparentisnotrelievedfromliabilityforunpaidchildsupportafterthechildbecomesemancipatedbyreachingtheageofmajority.See_Kuykendall_Ԁv.Wheeler,890S.W.2d785,786(Tenn.1994);_Clinard_Ԁv._Clinard_,App.No.01S019502CV00021,1995WL563858,at*3(Tenn.Sept.25,1995)(DesignatedNotforPublication).Thecourtheldthattheonlyproceduresforcollectingmoneyjudgmentsforunpaidchildsupportwerethestatutoryproceduresavailabletocollectothermoneyjudgments.PriortoJuly1,1994,theseproceduresincludedexecution,garnishment,andjudicialliens.See_Kuykendall_Ԁv.Wheeler,890S.W.2dat786.AfterJuly1,1994,followingtheenactmentofTenn.CodeAnn.365101(k), 5   ׀partiesmayalsocollectmoneyjudgmentsforpastduechildsupportusingcontemptproceedings.See_Clinard_Ԁv._Clinard_,supra,1995WL563858,at*3. Neither_Kuykendall_Ԁv.Wheelernor_Clinard_Ԁv._Clinard_addressthenatureofadebtforunpaidchildsupportandcertainlystopshortofholdingthatadebtforunpaidchildsupportisnolongerachildsupportdebtwhenthechildbecomesemancipated.Bothcasesdealonlywiththeproceduresavailabletoenforceajudgmentforchildsupportarrearage.Accordingly,asamatterofstatelaw,wefindthatadebtforunpaidchildsupportremainsachildsupportdebtevenafterthechildforwhomthesupportshouldhavebeenpaidhasbeenemancipated. Asiftocompoundhermisinterpretationofthe_Kuykendall_and_Clinard_cases,Ms.Rossalsoinsiststhatthesecasessomehowcontrolthe_dischargeability_inbankruptcyofherdebtforunpaidchildsupport.ThisargumentoverlooksCongresssunrestrictedandparamountpowerunderU.S.Const.art.I,8,cl.4toestablishuniformbankruptcylawsthroughouttheUnitedStates.Anystatelaworinterpretationofstatelawthatfrustratesthepurposesofthefederalbankruptcylaworinterfereswithitspurposesisinvalid.SeeInre_Wimmer_,121_B.R._Ԁ539,543(Bankr.C.D.Ill.1990);InrePhillips,13_B.R._Ԁ811,815(Bankr.N.D.Ohio1981).Themeaningandeffectofthebankruptcylawsdonotdependonanyindividualstateslaws.SeeInreHunter,122_B.R._Ԁ349,355(Bankr.N.D.Ind.1990).Onlyfederalbankruptcylaw,notstatecaselaw,determinesthenatureand_dischargeability_Ԁofadebtinbankruptcy. OneofthemostvenerableprinciplesofAmericanbankruptcylawisthatadebtorsobligationtoprovide_spousal_Ԁsupportcannotbedischarged.SeeInre_Swate_,99F.3d1282,1286(5thCir.1996)(quotingInre_Tessler_,44_B.R._Ԁ786,787(Bankr.S.D.Cal.1984)).Thisprincipleisembodiedin11U.S.C.A.523(a)(5)(1993&Supp.1997)whichprovidesthatadischargedoesnotrelieveanindividualdebtorfromanydebt toaspouse,formerspouse,orchildofthedebtor,foralimonyto,maintenancefor,orsupportofsuchspouseorchild,inconnectionwithaseparationagreement,divorcedecreeorotherorderofacourtofrecord.Thus,whilestatelawmayguidethefederalcourtsinascertainingthenatureoftheobligation,federallawwilldeterminewhetherthepurported_spousal_Ԁorchildsupportis_dischargeable_.SeeInreSinger,787F.2d1033,1035(6thCir.1986)(Guy,J.,concurring);Inre_Prager_,181_B.R._Ԁ917,920(Bankr.W.D.Tenn.1995)(citingH.R.Rep.No.595,95thCong.,1stSess.364(1977);S.Rep.No.989,95thCong.,2dSess.79(1988)).Thestrongpolicyfavoringtheenforcementof_spousal_Ԁandchildsupportordersin11U.S.C.A.523(a)(5)overcomesthegeneralrulethatexceptionstodischargeshouldbeconstruedinthedebtorsfavor.SeeInreMiller,55F.3d1487,1489(10thCir.1995);InreMacDonald,194_B.R._Ԁ283,287(Bankr.N.D.Ga.1996). Federalcourtsarenotboundbyandmustlookbeyondthelabelthepartiesorthestatecourtsattachtoadebt.SeeInre_Chism_,169_B.R._Ԁ163,169(Bankr.W.D.Tenn.1994).However,whenthereisnoquestionthatanobligationisforsupport,andisdesignatedassuch,theobligationisnot_dischargeable_Ԁinbankruptcy.SeeInre_Fitzgerald_,9F.3d517,521(6thCir.1993);Inre_Prager_,181_B.R._Ԁat920.Accordingly,theweightofauthorityisthatapostmajoritychildsupportarrearageisnot_dischargeable_Ԁinbankruptcy.See_Hylek_Ԁv._Hylek_,148F.2d300,30203(7thCir.1945);Inre_Harrell_,33_B.R._Ԁ989,995(N.D.Ga.1983);Inre_Ehlers_,189_B.R._Ԁ835,840(Bankr.N.D.Ala.1995);Inre_Sokolsky_,18_B.R._Ԁ138,139(Bankr.M.D.Fla.1982);InreBeck,No.9222414B,1994WL687446,at*5(Bankr.W.D.Tenn.Dec.6,1994). Reducingachildsupportarrearagetojudgmentdoesnotchangethenatureoftheunderlyingdebtfor_dischargeability_Ԁpurposes.SeeInre_Swate_,99F.3dat1289;InreAvery,114F.2d768,769(6thCir.1940);InreNelson,16_B.R._Ԁ658,660(Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1981).Asonecourtpointedout,8 8 Thenatureoftheobligationuponwhichthejudgmentrestswasnotalteredbythefactthatthechildrenhadreachedtheirmajoritybeforethejudgmentwasobtained.Torelievethefatherofsuchliabilitybecausethechildrenhadreachedtheirmajoritypriortotherenditionofthejudgmentwould,inourview,runcountertothepurposeandspirit...oftheBankruptcyAct._Hylek_Ԁv._Hylek_,148F.2dat303._Dischargeability_Ԁofadebtisdeterminedbythesubstanceoftheliability,orthenatureoftheclaim,insteadofitsform.SeeInreDennis,25F.3d274,27778(5thCir.1994). BecausetherecordcontainsnoevidencethatMs.Rosss$1,140debttoMr._LeMasters_Ԁwasanythingotherthanchildsupportorthatthebankruptcycourtactuallydischargedthisdebt,Ms.Rossschildsupportarrearagewasnotdischargedinbankruptcy.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsorderthatMr._LeMasters_sIndianajudgmentofunpaidchildsupportisenforceableinTennessee.@ III.  Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoLinda_LeMasters_ԀRossandhersuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       _____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_________________________________BENH._CANTRELL_,JUDGE