Curtis Fort and the State of Florida filed motions for partial summary judgment. The Court partially granted and denied both motions. The Court examined five points of law. The first was Mr. Fort’s claim that the State of Florida’s continued collection through wage garnishment of the pre-petition domestic support obligation violated the provisions of the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2)(C) provides that the filing of a petition does not operate as a stay with respect to the withholding of income that is the property of the estate or property of the debtor for payment of a domestic support obligation under a judicial or administrative order or a statute. Therefore, the Court concluded that the actions of the State of Florida did not violate automatic the automatic stay.
The second was Mr. Fort’s claim that the State of Florida’s post-confirmation collection of funds in excess of those provided for in the plan was a violation of the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §1327(a). Because a confirmation order must provide finality with respect to the balance of creditors’ rights with the debtor’s responsibilities, the Court concluded that the continued garnishment for pre-petition domestic support constituted a violation of the confirmation order and 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a).
The third was the State of Florida’s claim for post-petition interest due upon the State of Florida’s allowed claim. Mr. Fort conceded that such interest was due and that the confirmed plan does not provide for the payment of such interest. The Court concluded that the State of Florida was entitled to be paid the amount provided by the confirmed plan together with interest.
The fourth was Mr. Fort’s claim that the Court’s order allowing the State’s claim in a reduced amount was res judicata as to the amount of the claim. The Court applied the reasoning used in Five Boroughs. The Court also examined the language of section 1328(a)(2). The Court rejected the contention that a bankruptcy court’s determination of any claim’s allowed amount can have no effect apart from the bankruptcy case.
The fifth was the question of whether the Debtors properly challenged the claim field by Florida in their new case by means of an objection such claim in the bankruptcy court or whether, Mr. Fort out to have filed in the proper Florida state court a motion or other appropriate pleading. The Court concluded that for it to attempt to determine the amount owing as of the filing date upon even an already established claim of such kind runs an unacceptable risk of inconsistent computations of what incontrovertibly was a non-dischargeable obligation.
