The Debtor and his ex-spouse entered into a separation agreement which provided that the Debtor was to pay all of the undergraduate tuition for their three dependent children (approximately 17, 15 and 13 years old).  A divorce decree was entered, which incorporated the terms of the separation agreement.  The Debtor then filed for bankruptcy, and his ex-spouse filed a claim of $225,589.40 for reimbursement of primary and secondary school tuition for their children, which she asserts is entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7).  The Chapter 7 Trustee objected to the priority status.  The Court agreed with the Trustee, holding that a claim is a seventh priority claim under Section 507 only if the underlying debt was incurred in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree, or other court order.  In this case, neither the separation agreement nor the divorce decree provide for the payment of the dependent children's primary and secondary school tuition.  The separation agreement only provides for the payment of the children's undergraduate tuition; "undergraduate" is defined as "of, relating to, or engaged in college or university studies prior to the first decree."  Accordingly, the Court disallowed the ex-spouse's claim of $225,589.40 in full.

This Opinion references two cases -- the above-captioned case as well as In re Wiencko, Case No. 01-05219.  The Debtors requested an evidentiary hearing on their claim objection on the basis that this Court needs to take additional evidence as it relates to a Pennsylvania state court judgment which forms the basis for the creditor's claim in order for the Court to be able to properly determine whether the claim falls into any of the subparagraphs of 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), which would result in disallowance of the limitation of the amount of the claim.  The Debtors essentially want this Court to re-characterize the Pennsylvania state court judgment order by introducing additional evidence.  The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes the Court from holding an evidentiary hearing to examine whether the Pennsylvania Court's judgment was based upon an employment contract when the judgment denotes it was based upon a shareholder minority oppression claim.  See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).  Accordingly, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to receive and consider extrinsic evidence pertaining to the Pennsylvania state court judgment.

The Court held that the debtor improperly exempted only the amount the debtor projected remaining in a bank account due to checks delivered but not presented, but granted the debtor leave to amend the exemption.

Fee application - Law firm is entitled to fee incurred defending its own insufficient disclosure when all creditors will be paid in full and prior fee reduction order was not challenged.