Moers v. Premazon

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 31, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 06-20358
(Summary Calendar)
_____________________
IN THE MATTER OF: ROBERT W. MOERS,
Debtor
- - - - - - - - - -
ROBERT W. MOERS,
Appellant
versus
NANCY PREMAZON,
Appellee
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(4:05-CV-2107)
---------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Debtor-Appellant Robert W. Moers seeks reversal of the
Bankruptcy Court’s summary judgment in an adversary proceeding
brought by his ex-wife, Appellee Nancy Premazon, in which she
sought non-discharge of the Debtor’s state court judgment debt to

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Premazon for attorneys’ fees incurred and awarded in connection
with these parties’ child custody disputes. Moers contends on
appeal that the Bankruptcy Court erred (and thus too the district
court sitting in appeal by affirming the Bankruptcy Court) in
ruling that —— irrespective of the classification for purposes of
Texas law by the family court and the state appellate court
regarding the nature of these attorneys’ fees —— under federal
bankruptcy law, the entire amount of the attorneys’ fees for which
Moers is indebted by judgment to Premazon is non-dischargeable.
Both parties submitted to this court that, given the
essentially undisputed facts and the entirely legal nature of the
issue presented by this appeal, oral argument would not aid in our
disposition of the case. We agree. Having now carefully reviewed
the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, including,
without limitation, the exhaustive explication of the case by the
Bankruptcy Court in its Memorandum of Decision dated April 1, 2004,
we are convinced —— as was the district court —— that the
Bankruptcy Court ruled correctly when it granted partial summary
judgment that $120,000 in attorneys’ fees, plus interest, owed by
Moers to Premazon is non-dischargeable, subject to any offset Moers
may establish, and denying Premazon’s $45,000 conditional award of
attorneys’ fees; at the same time denying Moers’s motion for
summary judgment. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the
Bankruptcy Court’s Memorandum of Decision, that court’s partial
summary judgment is, in all respects,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --