In Re Charles Stringer, Ii, Debtor. Charles Stringer, Ii, Debtor-Appellant v. Aristela Huet, Claimant-Appellee

Good Law
847 F.2d 549·17 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1169·19 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 233·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 6984
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 24, 198886-2432, 86-2611California2,133 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sneed, J.

Pro se appellant Charles Stringer, a debt- or in bankruptcy proceedings, appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision that a state court’s modification of a child support order is exempt from the automatic stay. We reverse.

I.

PACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On May 28, 1985, Aristela Huet, the ex-wife of Charles Stringer, filed a motion in the San Francisco Superior Court requesting an increase of $100 monthly in child support payments. On July 5, 1985, Stringer filed a Chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy. About six weeks later, on August 20, 1985, the San Francisco Superior Court granted Huet’s motion and modified the child support order by increasing the amount owed by $100 a month. On October 1, 1985, Stringer made a motion in bankruptcy court to have the San Francisco Superior Court's child support modification order declared void. The bankruptcy court denied the motion on the grounds that child support payments were exempt from automatic stays in bankruptcy. Stringer appealed to the district court for the Northern District of California. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision on July 16, 1986.

At this point things became a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.