Not in the case of Wigley v. Wigley, 17CV0425 (W.D. Va., Roanoke Division, 2017), where the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Roanoke abstained from considering wife’s action to enforce an I-864 Affidavit of Support against her husband. While the case does not directly concern bankruptcy, it illustrates the principles underlying the tension between federal and state court jurisdiction in family law matters.
The parties were married for five years before separating. Wife had been a citizen of China and Husband was a U.S. citizen. Husband executed an I-864 Affidavit of Support as the sponsor of Wife’s petition for a change of residency to a permanent resident alien, commonly known as a “green card” status. In the Affidavit of Support, the sponsor agrees to support the petitioner at an income level of at least 125% of the U.S. poverty rate for 40 quarters (10 years) to prevent the petitioner from becoming a public ward.
When the parties separated, Wife applied for and obtained spousal support in the Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for her county. Husband subsequently filed for a divorce in the Virginia Circuit Court for the county where they had resided. Wife then filed for enforcement of Husband’s Affidavit of Support in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Husband filed a motion to dismiss Wife’s action.
The U.S. District Court dismissed Wife’s action based on the doctrine of abstention, citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The Younger doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a matter, absent extraordinary circumstances, when there is a pending state court proceeding. Federal courts apply the following three prong test in determining whether the Younger doctrine compels abstention: 1. there are ongoing state court proceedings; 2. which implicate important state interests; and, 3. there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state court proceeding. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., et al., 457 U.S. 423 (1982).
In the Wigley case, Wife had raised the I-864 Affidavit of Support issue in both the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court spousal support proceeding and in the pending Circuit Court divorce case, satisfying the first and third prongs of the Younger test. The Wigley court recognized that family relations involved important state interests, satisfying the second prong, thus justifying absention.
How is bankruptcy law different from immigration law in the context of a divorce?
First, there are multiple specific provisions dealing with family law and the dissolution of marriage in the bankruptcy code. Section 101(14A) of Title 11 defines “domestic support obligations” as consisting of four elements. Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(5) & (15) define what family law related debts are nondischargeable: (5) a domestic support obligation; and (15) a non-domestic support obligation family law debt. Bankruptcy Code Section 1307(c)(11) provides for conversion or dismissal of a chapter 13 case for failure to pay a post-petition domestic support obligation. Section 1325 requires that the chapter 13 debtor is current in all post-petition domestic support obligations for plan confirmation and Section 1328 requires the same for a chapter 13 discharge.
While the bankruptcy court has non-exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of family law debts under 11 U.S.C. §523, and exclusive jurisdiction to grant relief from stay under 11 U.S.C. §362 for the continuation of family law matters in state court, the Younger doctrine should compel abstention in any attempt to litigate spousal support or equitable distribution in federal court. Bankruptcy courts have long recognized that property rights in bankruptcy are governed by state law, not federal law.
You should consult with your Virginia bankruptcy and divorce attorney, or Glen Allen divorce lawyer James H. Wilson, Jr., to discuss how bankruptcy might affect your divorce, or vice versa.