Violations of the automatic stay; Whether a Family Court hearing was excepted from the stay because it was for the purpose of establishing & modifying a domestic-support obligation; 11 USC § 362(b)(2)(A)(ii); Whether contempt proceedings in the Family Court violated the stay; Amendment of a garnishment order to pay an additional domestic support obligation; § 362(b)(2)(C); Interception of a tax refund to collect support obligations; § 362(b)(2)(F)

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the purpose of the Creditor’s (the Debtor’s ex-husband) second contempt motion was to compel her “to pay pre-petition arrearages under threat of sanction for civil contempt.” Thus, the Family Court’s judgment finding her in contempt violated the stay and was void. Further, his third contempt motion, filed after the bankruptcy petition was filed, “violated the stay as a forbidden commencement of a judicial proceeding to enforce a pre-petition obligation.” Under a pre-petition Family Court order, Debtor and Creditor were to “split the cost of medical care and extra-curricular activities for” their children. He was seeking reimbursement for her share of these expenses when she filed for bankruptcy. Post-petition, the Family Court conducted a hearing on his “request for payment, made findings on the obligation due and payment of the obligation, and found Debtor in contempt of a prior order. Debtor filed a motion” in the bankruptcy court seeking sanctions for violation of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court “found that some actions violated the automatic stay and awarded attorneys’ fees as actual damages and punitive damages.” The Panel concluded that the Family Court’s hearing establishing the amount Debtor owed Creditor, its order of payment via “wage garnishment, and Creditor’s subsequent payment by way of” tax refund intercepts “would not have been stayed under § 362 because exceptions under § 362(b) are applicable to each action.” The hearing was held to establish and modify “a domestic support obligation and was excepted from the automatic stay.” Further, the judgment for “$1,270.66 was the establishment of a domestic support obligation” and not a violation of the stay. Likewise, the judgment “directing the additional domestic support obligation to be paid through garnishment of Debtor’s wages, effected by amending the garnishment order in place, was not a violation of the stay.” But because the judgment did not limit collection of an initial $50 Payment for her domestic support obligation (to be made directly to the Creditor) “from funds that were not property of the estate, that portion of the judgment violated the stay and is void. Similarly, Creditor’s attempts to collect the $50 and” a pre-petition medical expense “were not limited to funds that were not property of the estate.” Thus, his attempts to collect these debts violated the stay. There was no applicable exception. Affirmed.