Spousal Support "Exempted" in Bankruptcy?

SO..when is spousal support  "exempted"  in Bankruptcy?  How about under CCP 703.140?

.......... What if the "MSA was purportedly ambiguous?"

.......... What if the court thinks the MSA lists the spousal support--- but                        it's really not spousal?

.......... What if the alleged support was not reasonably necessary for such                      support?

-------> Must the Court look beyond the labels provided for in the Marital Settlement Agreement?

An evidentiary hearing in Bankruptcy Court is very interesting. (See ftp://38.98.2.146/DKupetzArticle.pdf )
...............["While there are significant differences between adversary proceedings and contested matters, the similarities between them are greater than appellant assumes. 
In a contested matter, there is no summons and complaint, pleading rules are relaxed, counterclaims and third-parties practice does not apply, and most pre-trial procedure is either foreshortened or dispensed with in the interest of time and simplicity.

 ...Nevertheless, . . . discovery is available, testimony regarding contested material factual disputes must be taken in the same manner as in an adversary proceeding, and the court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law before entering an order that has the status of a judgment." ]

In this particular case, the Trustee objected to the purported spousal support exemption under the CCP code cited above.  Also noted, Trustee mentioned that the item was purportedly concealed before, but that was not  made very clear.

Both parties had attorneys, both parties had attorneys during the MSA process, and the wife had expert. Wife stood to lose about $200,000. and yes,
she did lose it.

...[T]he court initially noted that nearly all cases regarding whether an award is in the nature of spousal support are in the context of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(5), as opposed to an exemption, which was "a different situation." Hr'g Tr. (Jan. 20, 2012) 88:2.      Nevertheless, the court proceeded to discuss In re Combs, a nondischargeability case, and the factors a court can consider in determining whether an award in a divorce decree is in the nature of spousal support or a property settlement. 

     In considering the Combs factors, the court concluded that the Met Life Account was not spousal support; it was a division of property, and therefore not exempt under CCP § 703.140(b)(10)(D). 

The court further noted that the MSA's express provision for spousal support which, under Stout, could be considered in determining whether an award in a divorce decree is support or property division, was an important factor in its decision to disallow the exemption.

The bankruptcy court entered an order sustaining Trustee's objection and disallowing Diener's exemption of the Met Life Account as spousal support under CCP § 703.140(b)(10)(D) on February 10, 2012. Diener timely appealed.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20BCO%2020121128926.xml/IN%20RE%20DIENER  (read case at this link)

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20BCO%2020121128926.xml/IN%20RE%20DIENER

You will likely need to be an attorney to understand it, but then again, maybe not.The bottom line is-- if your client may end up in bankruptcy court to salvage assets, you better be sure that the MSA will work under bankruptcy rules and state exemptions, otherwise, as can be seen here, it can open a brand new issue never decided by a bankruptcy court before, and your client is the guinea pig.

Had the wife accepted payments of support without the need for later claiming that the award was an intended buy out for spousal (which was not apparently stated) in the MSA, perhaps she could have left that provision subject to open jurisdiction to enforce; but by taking the money all at once, and since it was not deemed spousal (which would make it taxable to wife) it appears that the Trustee realized this, because the debtor kept amending the Schedule C Exemptions. 
                                 Which is likely a red flag in our opinion....Oops......

Using "Limited Scope" Designation with Attorney..........Should You?

Many clients simply cannot afford full scope representation by hiring an attorney for every single issue in the divorce. This is understandable; however, an attorney who is willing to do only certain
issues in the case might be able to handle those issues which are important, while not representing clients on every single issue in the case.

As an example.... if you are using DCSS for child support-- you may not actually need an attorney, unless you have some issues which are not ordinary within the child support issue.

Or if you only have a TRO but expect that it might resolve with a no negative conduct, you may only need help with a custody order.

Or, let's say you have finished mediation and only want to contest the mediation recommendation--and it requires a trial; or the opposite, your spouse wants to contest the mediation report but you want to keep it as an order?

Or, let's say your ex did the calculation re spousal support, but made an error and it must be changed, but to what degree and why?

Many issues that come up during divorces are not especially difficult because the law only allows one way to do something (such as splitting an asset 50/50)  but in the cases where such things can be evaluated according to facts, circumstances, and behaviors, i.e. FC 3044, then see: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/3044sheetEN.pdf

Attorney has done many of these  types of cases both as Petitioner's Counsel and as Respondent's. and because attorney has been involved in criminal law cases (i.e. such as defending an alleged gang member, criminal protective orders, alleged stalker, etc.) attorney has seen both sides, pro and con. Strategy is an important part in family law, and many attorneys simply waste time and client's money.

 Attorney herein does not like to waste money on non-needed legal maneuvers; attorney has routinely worked with contractors, who are mostly men, and easily relates to those working in the trades. Primadonnas are not attorney's preferred client. Now we know most attorneys would never say this, but since millions of people these days put their personal/business data out there, such as on Facebook, attorney will never be on Facebook. Therefore, take that for what it's worth. And attorney just saw on another attorney's website, they WILL NOT TAKE YOU AS A CLIENT, if you have a DV TRO against you, or if you have had two attorneys in the past on your case, or if you are not current on support. WOW, that's rather prejudicial IMHO......

Attorney has been highly sought after for many difficult cases and has to turn down many cases due to a limited work load. Attorney's comparative fee scale is also considered the most affordable. Additionally, attorney has appeared in many different jurisdictions over the years including San Diego (Facilitator's), San Mateo, Denver CO, Sacramento Federal Court, Los Angeles Superior Court, etc. So if you believe you may need help in your case, consider calling attorney. It cannot be guaranteed that attorney can do your case however,  😊 ... attorney is not judgmental, and is friendly.