R.L.H. v. C.J.P.
R.L.H. v. C.J.P.
Opinion of the Court
R.L.H. (“the father”) appeals from a judgment directing him to pay child support to C.J.P. (“the custodian”). We affirm.
Because the father’s arguments on appeal are limited to the legal issue of whether his bankruptcy filing precluded the trial court from entering the judgment at issue, a detailed procedural history is not warranted.
On appeal, the father asserts that the case should be reversed and remanded for placement on the trial court’s administrative docket until the bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay as to the custodian’s complaint. His two-page argument cites only one case, Carver v. Carver, 954 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 986, 113 S.Ct. 496, 121 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992), in support of his contention that the automatic stay prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction. However, since Carver was decided, Congress has amended 11 U.S.C. § 362 to exclude from the automatic bankruptcy stay “the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding for ... the establishment or modification of an order for alimony, maintenance, or support” (11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2)(A)(ii) (1994)). Thus, the automatic stay did not apply to the custodian’s proceeding, which sought to establish an order for child support.
Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, the trial court’s judgment is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. This court previously ruled that the father’s "suggestion of bankruptcy” to this court did not stay the father’s appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.