Moeder v. Moeder (In Re Moeder)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that sub-parts (A) and (B) were exceptions that “constitute affirmative defenses to non-dis-chargeability which must be proven by the debtor to escape non-dischargeability of the disputed debt”
• recognizing that § 523(a)(15)(A) focuses on the debtor’s disposable income
• recognizing that § 523(a)(15)(A) focuses on the debtor’s disposable income
• recognizing that § 523(a)(15)(A) focuses on the debtor’s disposable income
• finding divorce court order that ordered debtor to pay monthly child support plus 78% of all unreimbursed medical expenses intended as support
• of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panels which have considered this question, both have concluded that § 523(a)(15)(A) and (B) must be treated as affirmative defenses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).