In Re:Joseph Farelli

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-6-2008
In Re:Joseph Farelli
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1157
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re:Joseph Farelli " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1046.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1046
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 07-1157
IN RE: JOSEPH A. FARELLI,
Appellant
KIRSTON J. FARELLI
v.
JOSEPH A. FARELLI
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 02-CV-1376
District Judge: The Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 20, 2008
Before: SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges,
STAFFORD, District Judge *
(Filed: June 6, 2008)
OPINION
*
The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Joseph A. Farelli and Kirston J. Farelli filed for divorce in February of 2000 in the
Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania. In October of 2003, the state
court issued a decision awarding Kirston $103,679.00 of the marital property.1 In March
of 2005, Joseph filed a voluntary petition for protection under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code. Kirston filed an adversary proceeding against Joseph, seeking to
except from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5) and (15) the award made by the state
court. The Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania found that the
Pennsylvania state court’s award to Kirston was in the nature of maintenance and support
under § 523(a)(5). For that reason, it concluded that Joseph’s debt to Kirston was not
dischargeable. Joseph unsuccessfully appealed to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. This timely appeal followed.2
Joseph Farelli contends that the Bankruptcy Court erred by concluding that the
award was in the nature of maintenance for and support of Kirston. Consistent with our
decision in Gianakas v. Gianakas, 917 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1990), the Bankruptcy Court
considered the circumstances at the time of the state court decree to discern the intent of
1
The record fails to contain the state court decision at the heart of this appeal. For that
reason, we have relied upon the factual recitation of the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court.
2
The Bankruptcy Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). The
District Court’s jurisdiction arose under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Our jurisdiction exists under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). “As an appellate court twice removed from the primary tribunal, we review
both the factual and the legal determinations of the district court for error.” Universal Minerals,
Inc. v. C.A. Hughes & Co., 669 F.2d 98, 101 (3d Cir. 1981).
2
the state court when it divided the marital property. The Bankruptcy Court appropriately
looked beyond the label of the obligation and took into account the disparity between the
respective financial prospects of the parties at the time of the decree. In deciding the
function served by the state court’s award to Kirston, the Court examined the extent of
Kirston’s ability to provide for her daily necessities. We find no error in the Bankruptcy
Court’s conclusion that the debt Joseph owed was in the nature of maintenance for and
support of Kirston, thereby qualifying as an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. §
523(a)(5).3 Although Joseph points to circumstances that changed after the obligation
arose as evidence that Kirston did not require this award for her support, the Bankruptcy
Court explained that such circumstances were not relevant in its determination of the state
court’s intent at the time it issued its decree. As we explained in Gianakas, a debtor may
resort to state court to seek modification of a decree on the grounds of changed
circumstances. 917 F.2d at 763.
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3
Joseph faults the Bankruptcy Court for failing to consider the applicability of §
523(a)(15). We find no error as the determination that the debt is excepted from discharge under
§ 523(a)(5) obviates the need to determine if the debt is excepted under (a)(15), which applies to
debts that are “not of the kind described in paragraph (5) . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).
3