Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

THEODORE CARLTON RICHARDSON v. YVONNE EDWARDS </h1> <p class="docCourt"> </p> <p> October 28, 1997 </p> <p class="case-parties"> <b>THEODORE CARLTON RICHARDSON, APPELLANT<br><br>v.<br><br>YVONNE EDWARDS, APPELLEE</b><br><br> </p> <div class="caseCopy"> <div class="facLeaderBoard"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1233285632737842"; /* FACLeaderBoard */ google_ad_slot = "8524463142"; google_ad_width = 728; google_ad_height = 90; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src=""> </script> </div class="facLeaderBoard"> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p><br> Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (95cv01455)</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Sentelle and Randolph, Circuit Judges.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Randolph, Circuit Judge</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> FOR PUBLICATION</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Argued September 2, 1997</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> T. Carlton Richardson filed a petition for voluntary bankruptcy in 1994. Among the debts he sought to discharge were two resulting from his 1990 Maryland divorce. The divorce decree incorporated portions of a Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agree-ment between Richardson and Yvonne Edwards, to whom he had been married for 20 years. The parties reached their settlement after trial and after the state court orally issued its opinion, but before judgment was entered. The divorce decree (1) ordered Richardson to pay Edwards $750 per month for child support until the year 2000; and (2) incorporated the terms of the Settlement Agreement requiring Richardson to assume the second mortgage on the family home, holding Edwards harmless in the event he defaulted.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Edwards filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court seeking a determination that both of Richardson's obligations-the child support and the second mortgage assumption-were non-dischargeable debts "in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support," 11 U.S.C. Section(s) 523(a)(5)(B). The bankruptcy court agreed with Edwards and the district court affirmed. Edwards v. Richardson (In re Richardson), Ch. 7 Case No. 94-00324, Adv. No. 94-0083 (Bankr. D.D.C. June 6, 1995); Richardson v. Edwards, No. 95-1455 (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 1995). Richardson then brought this appeal.</p></div> <div class="facAdFloatLeft"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1233285632737842"; /* FACContentLeftSkyscraperWide */ google_ad_slot = "1266897617"; google_ad_width = 160; google_ad_height = 600; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src=""></script> </div class="facLeaderBoard"> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> I.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Richardson offers two grounds for overturning the decision regarding his $750 monthly child support payments. Both grounds rely on the fact that Richardson's and Edwards' youngest child became eighteen years old, the age of majority in Maryland, see Corry v. O'Neill, <a>658 A.2d 1155</a>, 1157-58 (1995); Md. Ann. Code art. I, Section(s) 24 (1996), on October 20, 1993.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Richardson's first point is that when children reach the age of majority, only they may contest the dischargeability of child support obligations; they are the intended beneficiaries of the payments and, given their age, there is no longer any custodial parent. Hence, Richardson's former wife has no "standing." There is nothing to this. The divorce decree designates Edwards as the recipient of Richardson's child support payments, including payments to be made after the children reach the age of majority. Edwards would therefore suffer injury from the discharge of Richardson's debt, and her injury is capable of being redressed through a ruling that the support payments are nondischargeable. Edwards thus fulfills the constitutional requirements for standing to sue. See Bennett v. Spear, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1160 (1997). In contending otherwise, Richardson has confused "standing" with the requirement that suits be prosecuted in the name of the "real party in interest," see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7017 (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)), an objection we will not entertain because Richardson failed to raise it in the bankruptcy court. See Whelan v. Abell, 953 F.2d 663, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Whether asserted in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, or as an affirmative defense, see 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure Section(s) 1554, at 405-09 (2d ed. 1990), see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008 (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(b) (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)), a "real party in interest" objection must be made "with reasonable promptness." 6A Wright, supra, Section(s) 1554, at 407. To wait until the case reaches the court of appeals is to waive the objection.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Richardson's second point is that his obligation to pay Edwards $750 per month until the year 2000 cannot be considered child "support" within the meaning of Section(s) 523(a)(5). According to him, these payments resulted from the property settlement between him and Edwards. Besides, under Maryland law he had no legal duty to provide child support after his youngest child reached majority in 1993. See Corry, 658 A.2d at 1157-58. There are more than a few problems with this line of thinking.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Richardson's initial error is in supposing that child "support" cannot stem from a "property settlement." The law is precisely the opposite. Section 523(a) states:</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"> <p> (a) A discharge under Section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an ...</p> </div> </div> </div> <div id="caseToolTip" class="caseToolTip" style="display: none;"> <div class="toolTipHead"> </div> <div class="toolTipContent"> <p> Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion. To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase, you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents and concurrences that accompany the decision. Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion, there may not be additional text. </p> </div> <div class="toolTipFoot"> </div> </div> <br /> <div class="buyNowContainer"> <div class="price"> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/bracket-left.png" alt="" /> <span>Buy This Entire Record For $7.95</span> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/pdf.png" class="pdf" alt="" /> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/bracket-right.png" alt="" /> </div> <div class="details"> <p> Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,<br /> docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case. </p> <p> <a class="showCaseToolTip">Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.</a> </p> </div> <div class="buttons"> <input type="submit" name="FAC$cphMainContent$btnBuyNowBottom" value="Buy Now" id="btnBuyNowBottom" class="btn-cart-buy-now btn btn-fac btnOrderTop" data-doc-short-name="19971028_0000212.cdc.htm" data-doc-title="<title> THEODORE CARLTON RICHARDSON v. YVONNE EDWARDS" /> <input type="submit" name="FAC$cphMainContent$btnAddToCartBottom" value="Add To Cart" id="btnAddToCartBottom" class="btn-cart-add btn btn-fac btnOrderTop" data-doc-short-name="19971028_0000212.cdc.htm" data-doc-title="<title> THEODORE CARLTON RICHARDSON v. YVONNE EDWARDS" /> </div> </div> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocID" id="hfDocID" value="\FCT\CDC\1997\19971028_0000212.CDC.htm" /> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocTitle" id="hfDocTitle" value="<title> THEODORE CARLTON RICHARDSON v. YVONNE EDWARDS" /> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocShortName" id="hfDocShortName" value="19971028_0000212.CDC.htm" /> </div> <div id="pnlGrayBarBottom" class="grayBar"> <span class="grayBarLeft"></span><span class="grayBarRight"></span> </div> <div id="footer"> <p> <a href="">Home</a> <span>/</span> <a href=""> Our Sources</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">About Us</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">FAQs</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">Advanced Search</a> </p> <p> copyright 2017 LRC, Inc. <a href="">About Us</a> </p> <p> <span id="privacyPolicy"><a href="">PRIVACY POLICY</a></span> </p> <div id="crosslink" style="width: 100%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><a href=""><img src="" alt="Litigation Pathfinder - practical legal advice and comprehensive research resources made affordable" style="width: 375px;" /></a></div> </div> </div> </form> </body> </html>