Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kinkade v. Kinkade (In Re Kinkade)
Citations: 707 F.3d 546; 69 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 86; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800; 2013 WL 450976Docket: 12-30525
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 6, 2013; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The case involves Kenneth Joseph Kinkade's appeal regarding the dischargeability of a $43,675.50 debt owed to his ex-wife, Irene Porter Kinkade, under Section 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court, upheld by the district court, ruled that the debt is non-dischargeable because it was incurred during the divorce proceedings. The debt comprised two loans from Porter: $23,675.50 before their marriage and $20,000 during the marriage, both from her separate property. The state court confirmed Kinkade's obligation to pay this debt as part of the divorce judgment. Kinkade's appeal argued that Section 523(a)(15) applies only to community debts, but the court found no statutory basis for such a distinction. The language of the statute specifies that any debt incurred during divorce or separation proceedings is non-dischargeable, regardless of whether it is classified as community or separate. Consequently, Kinkade's arguments were deemed meritless, leading to the affirmation of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in favor of Porter. Kinkade contends that Section 523(a)(15) does not apply to the loan amount ($23,675.50) that Porter provided prior to their marriage, asserting that Porter's right to reimbursement is contractual and should not gain additional status through divorce proceedings. He argues that recognizing such a claim would imply common-law marriage, which is against Louisiana law, referencing *Schwegmann v. Schwegmann*, where a court ruled that unmarried cohabitation does not create property rights similar to those of married couples. However, the court distinguishes this case from *Schwegmann* because Kinkade and Porter were married, and their obligations were addressed during their divorce. The court has previously held that Section 523(a)(15) covers property settlement debts between spouses and is not limited to indemnity obligations related to third-party debts, a view supported by other cases such as *Matter of Gamble* and *In re Radulovic*. The courts have concluded that debts owed directly to a former spouse can be nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(15). The application of this section does not equate to recognizing common-law marriage; rather, it respects the state court's determination regarding property rights in divorce proceedings. The Louisiana court ruled that the Debt was not merely a contractual obligation but was intertwined with the marriage. Consequently, the court affirms that the debt is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code, upholding the bankruptcy court's judgment.