WPC0 ҕ\eIء WaY}lݑ82A!sf[r@@$Xwj^[C8ˉQ_UJK:hlda0ߴ8ܧtJo+2 %M 0GS UF  ^ w4 0cbK 0 DSb.E6 m8NOU8QU@]---#Z 0U} 0Yvvvvv 0 0GGGcO 0 0e! 0" 0" 0Z# 0# 0$ 0% 0,& 0& 0t' 0( 0( 03) 0) 0v* 0>+ 0+ 0, 0*- 0- 0T. 0...................................................... Bd/d/d/d/d/d/d/d/d/d/d/ 0 /HP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($XmTXXX.Courier New Regular  Z'$X}XXX    2    __"Whenadebtordeclaresbankruptcy,eachofitscreditorsis  entitledtofileaproofofclaim-i.e.,adocumentprovidingproof  ofarighttopaymentagainstthedebtor'sestate."Travelers_Cas_. \ _and_ԀSur.Co.ofAmerica_v._ԀPacificGasandElec.Co.,549U.S.443, 2 449(2007)(internalquotations_omitted_);seealso11U.S.C.101 X (5)(A).f;Z ^#; H3|x (;3r$ !XmPXXX  - -($  *    Z'$X}XXX    6    __Massachusettsprovidesstatutoryinterestforjudgments  preciselytomitigatetheincrementalcostsarisingfromlate  payments.SeeOsbornev._Biotti_,533N.E.2d1341(1989).- -U<4 9Z+ Courier New (@ Z(Times New Roman   Z'$X}XXX    1    __TheBankruptcyCodestatesthataChapter13Planshall"provide  forthefullpayment,indeferredcashpayments,ofallclaims  entitledtopriorityunderSection507ofthistitle,unlessthe \ holderofaparticularclaimagreestoadifferenttreatmentof 2 suchclaim."11U.S.C.1322(a)(2). S Z'$X}XXX    3    __AtoralargumentandinresponsetothisCourt'squestion,  Pritchettarguedthatthefeewasintendedtocompensateherfor  thetimevalueofheralimonypayments,andthecostofprocuring \ interimfinancingwhileheralimonypaymentswereoutstanding. 2 Thiscourtwillgenerally"notconsideranissueraisedforthe X firsttimeatoralargument,"Piazzav._Aponte_ԀRoque,909F.2d35, . 37(1stCir.1990),butourholdinginthiscasewouldnotbe   differentevenifPritchetthadadvancedthispositioninher   brief. ##uXd#  Z'$X}XXX    5    __ThiswasapositionthatwasnotadvancedbyPritchett,asnoted  above,butwhichweconsiderhereonlyforthesakeofargument.*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,    Z'$X}XXX    *    __OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation. O Z'$X}XXX    7    _Weclarifythatourholdingtodaydoesnotspeaktothevalidity  oftheAgreementbetweentheparties.Ourdecisiononlyaffects  thetreatmentofPritchett'sclaiminbankruptcy.*5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& `   Y Z'$X}XXX    4    __ThispartoftheAgreementread,inrelevantpart:  8  Allalimonypaymentsshallbedueinfundsavailableto \  theWifeonorbeforethefirstofeachmonth,andshall  besubjecttoalatepaymentpenaltyintheamountof  $50.00foreachdayafterthefirstofeachmonthupon \ whichtheyarereceivedbyorbecomeavailabletothe 2 Wife.*/+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L   d(J2Z'$ !XmPXXX      0   !X}XXX  _XX}8RXXdd8  *! z;@ UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  .z@ FortheFirstCircuit  # .# X}X Ay) ` dE<! ` A " r No.099005  W @INRE:NELSONJ.SMITH,   @HH'Debtor. _   Ay) ` dE< ` A  [  @,,"NELSONJ.SMITH, @  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. H @!RITAM.PRITCHETT, D @%Appellant.  Ay) ` dE<K` A L @  APPEALFROMTHEBANKRUPTCYAPPELLATEPANEL 1 @FORTHEFIRSTCIRCUIT W Ay) ` dE<` A  @'Before  @@ @ TorruellaandBoudin,CircuitJudges, D  @ andSaris,   *      ׀DistrictJudge. j! Ay) ` dE< ` A  #     CliffordP.Gallant,Jr.,withwhom_Beliveau_,_Fradette_,Doyle !% &Gallant,P.A.,wasonbriefforappellant. "&   MarkP.Cornell,withwhomKelly_Ovitt_Ԁ_Puc_andCornelland W#' _Ovitt_Ԁ_Puc_,_PLLC_,wasonbriefforappellee. -$}( Ay) ` dE<&` A &!+   November6,2009 '"-  Ay) ` d E<?)` A @)$/   %*u%1 ; 8}XXdXXd8     *!*,X` XX* ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge. Thisisanappealofanorder   oftheBankruptcyAppellatePanel("_BAP_")reversinganorderofthe x BankruptcyCourt.The_BAP_Ԁheldthatalatepaymentpenaltywasnot $t adomesticsupportobligationandthusdischargeableinbankruptcy.   Afterthoroughconsideration,weaffirm. |   @ I.Facts&ProceduralHistory  ( x   ` Theissueinthisappealarisesfromthemarriageand @  subsequentdivorceofNelsonJ.SmithandRitaM.Pritchett.The   partiesweremarriedonApril20,1986.Nochildrenwerebornof H  themarriage.Alittleovernineyearslater,thepartiesfiled D fordivorceintheMiddlesexCountyProbateandFamilyCourt,  citinganirretrievablebreakdownofthemarriage.OnOctober26, L 1995,theProbateCourtapprovedaSeparationAgreement H ("Agreement")filedjointlybytheparties.Thecourt'sorder  providedthattheAgreementsurvivedasanindependentcontract. P  ` TheAgreementstatedthatitresolvedallissuesbetween L theparties,andthattheparties'respectivefinancial   circumstanceshadbeentakenintoaccount,althoughtheparties' T!" specificcircumstanceswerenotdisclosedintheAgreement. #P$  ` TheAgreementcontainedandincorporatedExhibitsA,B, $& C,D,E,F,andG,detailingthedutiesoftheparties.The X&!( Exhibitswereentitled"ALIMONY,""MEDICALINSURANCE,""DIVISIONOF (T#* ASSETS,""LIFEINSURANCE,""ALLOCATIONOFMARITALDEBTS,""INCOME )%, TAXRETURNS,"and"SPECIALPROVISIONS,"respectively.ExhibitA \+&. awardedPritchettalimonypaymentsbeginningat$2,300permonth  anddecreasingto$1,600permonthonasetschedulethatwould \ terminateapproximatelyfiveyearsafterthesigningofthe X Agreement.IntheeventofPritchett'sremarriage,theAgreement   statedthatalimonypaymentsweretodecreaseto$1,000permonth `  butneverthelesscontinuethroughthefiveyearperiod.The  \  AgreementalsoincludedaprovisionrequiringSmithtopurchaseand   transfertoPritchettatermlifeinsurancepolicyonhislifefor d  thefiveyeartermofthealimonypaymentstoensurethatthe `  alimonypaymentswouldsurviveSmith'sdeath.    ` Under"Exhibit'A',"entitled"ALIMONY,"theAgreement h alsoprovidedthat: d 8 ` Allalimonypaymentsshallbedueinfunds  availabletotheWifeonorbeforethefirst  ofeachmonth,andshallbesubjecttoalate l paymentpenaltyintheamountof$50.00for B eachdayafterthefirstofeachmonthupon h whichtheyarereceivedbyorbecomeavailable > totheWife.` x` x ExhibitAfurtherprovidedthat"[_t]he_ԀpaymentsmadebytheHusband p  ...shallbedeductiblefortheHusbandandtaxabletotheWife !l" forincometaxpurposes." "$  ` Withtheexceptionofdebtsrelatedtooneproperty, t$& Smithwastoberesponsiblefortheparties'maritaldebts.In  &p!( addition,theAgreementalsoprovidedthattheHusbandwould"pay '#* tothe_Wife_Ԁ$150permonthtowardthemaintenanceofahealthplan x)$, oftheWife'schoiceforherbenefit."Finally,theAgreement $+t&. _provided_Ԁthateitherpartywouldbeentitledtoreasonable  attorney'sfeesintheeventofabreach. \  ` Smithappearstohavefalleninarrearsalmost X immediatelyaftertheAgreementbecameeffective,andin1998,he   filedaComplaintforModificationwiththeprobatecourt.On `  August20,1998,thecourtenteredaJudgmentofModification  \  amendingthetermsofthealimonypaymentstoatotalpaymentof   $42,373payableatarateof$500permonthuntilpaidinfull. d  Otherthanthischange,theSeparationAgreementremainedinfull `  forceandeffect.    ` In2005,PritchettfiledaComplaintforContemptwith h theappropriateMassachusettsprobatecourtseekingaccruedlate d paymentpenaltiesfromSmith.ThecourtfoundthatalthoughSmith  wascurrentonhisalimonypayments,andhadonly_oneremaining l paymentdue_,hispaymentshadbeenconsistentlylate.Asaresult, h onSeptember16,2005,thecourtenteredjudgmentagainstSmithin  theamountof$75,010,whichrepresentedthelatepaymentpenalties p  thathadaccumulatedsincethe1998modification. !l"  ` In2006,Pritchettcommencedanactioninthe "$ HillsboroughSuperiorCourtinthestateofNewHampshireto t$& enforcethejudgmentandobtainedanexparteattachmenttoSmith's  &p!( homesteadinNewHampshire.Alienwasrecordedaccordinglyinthe '#* HillsboroughCountyRegistryofDeedsonJuly21,2006.On x)$, March2,2007,theNewHampshirecourtapprovedastipulationby $+t&. thepartiesforajudgementof$75,010plusapplicablestatutory  interestandcosts. \  ` OnOctober5,2007,Smithfiledavoluntarypetition X underChapter13oftheBankruptcyCodewiththeUnitedStates   BankruptcyCourtfortheDistrictofNewHampshire.Smith's `  bankruptcyscheduleslistedPritchett'sclaimtolatepayment  \  penaltiesinScheduleD,"CreditorsHoldingSecuredClaims."    ` SmithfiledaproposedChapter13PlanonOctober11, d  2007,disclosinghisintenttofileamotiontoavoidPritchett's `  lienpursuantto11U.S.C.522(f),maintainingthatitimpaired   hishomesteadexemptionunderN.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.480:1.   1      ׀On h November29,2007,Pritchettfiledaproofofclaimintheamount d of$81,932.04._   2      _ԀPritchettalsofiledanobjectiontoconfirmation  ofSmith'sproposedChapter13planassertingthatherclaimwas l securedandthatitwasadomesticsupportobligationandthus h entitledtopriorityunder11U.S.C.507(a)(1)(A).Seealso11  U.S.C.1328(a)(2)(exceptingfromdischargedomesticsupport p  obligations).OnDecember6,2007,Smithfiledanobjectionto  Pritchett'sproofofclaim,andamotiontoavoidPritchett'slien. \  ` Thebankruptcycourtconductedanonevidentiaryhearing X onthemotionsandheldthatPritchett'sclaimwasadomestic   supportobligationandthusdeniedSmith'smotiontoavoid `  Pritchett'slien.Concedingitwasa"closecall,"thebankruptcy  \  courtconcludedthatthe$50fee"looks,smells,andfeelstoomuch   likeattorneys'feescollectingalimonyandsupportpayments,which d  havehistorically...beentreatedasinthesamenature"as `  alimony.Consequently,thecourtenteredordersdenyingSmith's   motiontoavoidPritchett'slienonhishomeandoverrulinghis h objectiontoPritchett'sclaim.Smithappealedtothe_BAP_,which d heldoralargumentsonDecember29,2008.The_BAP_Ԁreversedthe  bankruptcycourtonbothcounts,holdingthattheobligationat l issuewasnotinthenatureofsupportandthusthelienonSmith's h homewasavoidableandtheclaimwasageneralunsecuredclaimnot  entitledtoprioritystatus.SeeInreSmith,398_B.R._Ԁ715(1st p  Cir._BAP_Ԁ2008).The_BAP_Ԁheldthat"thebankruptcycourt's !l" statementthat'...itlooks,smellsandfeelstoomuchlike "$ attorneys'fees"wasnotsupportedbytheAgreementorthestate t$& courtordersincetheAgreementseparatelyprovidedforattorneys'  &p!( fees.Id.at722.Subsequenttothe_BAP_'sdecision,Smith's '#* residencewasforecloseduponbyaseniorlienholder,rendering x)$, thelienavoidanceissuemoot. $+t&. @ II.StandardofReview    ` Onthisappeal,weareessentiallyinthesameposition x asthe_BAP_,"reviewingthebankruptcycourt'sfindingsoffactfor $t clearerrorandaffordingdenovoreviewtoitsconclusionsof   law."Inre_Werthen_,329F.3d269,272(1stCir.2003).The |  questionofintentisoneoffact,seeInre_Werthen_,282_B.R._Ԁ553, ( x  556(_B.A.P._Ԁ1stCir.2002)(collectingcases),butalsoimplicates $  questionsoflaw.See,e.g.,InreHale,289_B.R._Ԁ788,791(_B.A.P._   1stCir.2003).Inthiscase,weagreewiththe_BAP_Ԁthatthe ,|  bankruptcycourtjudge'sdeterminationthatthe$50feewaslike ( attorneys'feesisnotsupportedbytheAgreementandthusclearly  erroneous.Inanyevent,thepartiesagreethattherelevantfacts 0 areundisputedandthereforeourreviewisdenovo. , @hh# III.Discussion    ` Theterm"domesticsupportobligation"("DSO")isanewly P definedtermintheBankruptcyCode,asupdatedbytheBankruptcy L AbusePreventionandConsumerProtectionActof2005("_BAPCPA_").   SeePub.L.1098,119Stat.23(2005).Asrelevanthere,aDSOis T!" definedas #P$ 8 ` adebtthataccruesbefore,on,orafterthe $& dateoftheorderforreliefinacaseunder % ' thistitle,includinginterestthataccrueson X&!( thatdebtasprovidedunderapplicable .'~") _nonbankruptcy_Ԁlaw[owedto]aformerspouse (T#* [andthatis]inthenatureofalimony, (*$+ maintenance,orsupport...withoutregard )%, towhethersuchdebtisexpresslyso *%- designated.\+&.` x` x  2,'/ 911U.S.C.101(14A).Thus,pursuanttothestatute,foran  obligationtoaformerspousetobeconsideredaDSO,itmust \ actuallybeinthenatureofsupport.Thisissueisoneoffederal X bankruptcylaw,andnotstatelaw.SeeInre_Werthen_,329F.3dat   27273. `   ` DSOcreditorsreceivespecialtreatmentinbankruptcy.  \  Theyaregivenpriorityovermostothercreditors,see11U.S.C.   507(a)(1)(A),(B),andtheirclaimsarealsonondischargeable d  underchapters7and13.See11U.S.C.727(b),1328(a)(2).The `  partyseekingtohaveadebtdeterminedaDSOandthus   nondischargeablebearstheburdenofprovingthattheobligationis h inthenatureofsupport.Inre_Werthen_,329F.3dat27172 d (statingthatmovingparty"boretheburdenofshowingthatthe  debtswerenondischargeable")(citing_Grogan_v.Garner,498U.S. l 279,28788(1991)). h  ` "[_S]upport_Ԁpaymentsare,roughlyspeaking,whatisgiven  toprovidefortheupkeepoftherecipientspouseandchildren." p  Inre_Werthen_,329F.3dat273.Thelabelappliedtothe !l" obligationbythecourtorthe_partiesis_Ԁnotnecessarily "$ controllingforBankruptcyCodepurposes.Id.Wehavesaidthat t$& oneoftheprincipalissuesis"whetherthedivorcecourtjudge  &p!( 'intended'aparticularawardtobeforsupportorforsomething '#* else."Id.Inotherwords,theintendedpurposetheobligationwas x)$, meanttoserve.Todiscernthisintent,"courtslooktoarangeof $+t&. factors,includingthelanguageusedbythedivorcecourtand  whethertheawardseemsdesignedtoassuageneed,asdiscernedfrom \ thestructureoftheawardandthefinancialcircumstancesofthe X recipients."Id.ThisCourthasnotadoptedaspecificmulti   factortestusedtodiscernintentwhendeterminingwhetheran `  obligationisinthenatureofsupport.SeeInre_Soforenko_,203  \  _B.R._Ԁ853,859(_Bankr_.D.Mass.1997)(describingthemultitudeof   multifactortestsusedinthisCircuit).Agreeingwiththe_BAP_ d  that"[_a]s_Ԁinallfactintensiveinquiries,thecriticalfactors `  dependonthetotalityofcircumstancesofaparticularcase,"we   declinetodosonow.InreSmith,398_B.R._Ԁat722. h  ` Atrialcourtmaylookbeyondtheseparationagreementto d discerntheparties'relativefinancialcircumstancesatthetime  ofthedivorceasevidenceoftheintentoftheparties.See, l e.g.,Inre_Werthen_,329F.3dat27374.Inthiscase,the h bankruptcycourtdecidedthatsupplementingtherecordwith  additionalinformationwasunnecessary,because p  8 ` _whatever_Ԁ[theparties']relativestatuswasis !l" totallysubsumedbythefactthattheyagreed !B# toascheduleofalimonypaymentsthatwere "$ fixed...andthatwasapprovedbythe #% Court,sothat,tome,isthefinalreflection t$& bytheagreementofthepartiesandbythe J% ' orderoftheCourtonwhattheireconomic  &p!( disparityintermsofassetsandearning &F") potentialandincomewereatthetime.'#*` x` x xKHearingTr.Jan.30,2008,at38.Thepartiesdonotdisputethis x)$, holding. $+t&.  ` Thequestiontheniswhether,giventhelanguageofthe  agreement,the$50perdaylatepaymentfeeprovisionwasintended \ assupporttoPritchett,or,alternativelywasintendedasa X punitivemeasuretodeterSmithfrompayinglate.Pritchettargues   thatthelanguageintheAgreementsupportsherpositionthatthe `  $50feewasintendedtoserveasalimony,maintenance,orsupport.  \  ShepointsoutthatthefeeprovisionwasincludedinanExhibit   entitled"ALIMONY."ShealsopointsoutthattheAgreementdidnot d  distinguishbetweenthealimonyscheduleandthe$50latefee,and `  statedthatanypaymentsmadebySmithundertheExhibitweretobe   treatedthesamewayalimonyisnormallytreatedforincometax h purposes.Thatis,thepaymentsweredeductibleasalimonytohim, d andtaxabletoher._   3      _   ` WefindPritchett'sargumentstobeunavailing.First, l atthesametimethattheprovisionwaslocatedunderaheading h called"ALIMONY"intheAgreement,thelanguageoftheprovision  referredtoitasa"latepaymentpenalty.",    4      ׀Inanyevent,the p  labelspartiesgivetoobligationsarenotcontrollinghere,as  discussedsupra.SeealsoInre_Werthen_,329F.3dat273(noting \ that"federalcourtshavebeenunwillingtotreatthelabelapplied X bythedivorcecourtascontrollingforBankruptcyCodepurposes").   Whilethetaxtreatmentoftheprovisionconstitutesafactor `  favoringPritchett,wearepersuadedthatthelatefeewasintended  \  toencouragepaymentofalimonyandwasnotitselfalimony.    ` First,thefeewascontingentonSmith'stardinessto d  pay,andwasnotcertaintomaterializeatall.SincePritchett `  hadnoexpectationofthispaymentunlessanduntilSmithwaslate,   itfollowsthattheonlywaythiscontingentpaymentcouldbe h consideredalimonyisifitwasmeanttocompensatePritchettfor d thetimeduringwhichshewaswaitingforheralimonypayment.   5        However,thatargumentisbeliedbythefactthatthe$50feewas l afixedchargethathadnoconnectiontotheactualalimonyowedto h Pritchett.WhetherSmithwaslatebyasingledollarorbythe  entirealimonypayment,hewouldstillowePritchettthesame$50. p   ` Second,theAgreementcalledforSmith'smonthlyalimony !l" paymentstodecreaseeveryyear,from$2,300to$1,600,andtoas "$ lowas$1,000ifPritchettremarried.Incontrast,thefeefora  latepaymentwasfixedthroughoutthetermoftheAgreement.A$50 \ perdayfeecompletelydisconnectedfromanyamountthatSmithowed X Pritchettcannothavebeenexpectedtobedirectlyrelatedtoher   recoupingthosecosts.Hadthepartiesprovidedforaninterest `  basedfee,contingentontheamountofalimonyoutstanding,  \  Pritchettwouldhaveastrongerargument._   6      _    ` ThesubstantialprovisionsforPritchett'ssupport d  outlinedintheagreementalsoweighagainstfindingthatthelate `  paymentfeewasintendedtoprovideforPritchett'ssupport.The   AgreementthatSmithandPritchettenteredintowasrelatively h sophisticated.Inadditiontoalimonythatcontinuedeveninthe d eventofPritchett'sremarriage,theAgreementprovidedfor  contributionstowardhermedicalinsurancepremiums,andmandated l thatthesupportoutliveSmith'sdeath.Legalfeesincurredin h enforcingtheagreement,aprovisionnotalwayscontemplatedin  suchcontracts,wereclearlyprovidedforinthisinstance. p  Pritchettalsoreceivedtheonlyrealestateownedbytheparties !l" thatwasnotinforeclosure,andSmithwassolelyresponsiblefor "$ theparties'debtsincurredpriortothedivorce. t$&  ` WethereforeagreewiththeBAP'sconclusionthatthe  &p!( obligationtopaya$50feeperdaythatSmithwaslateinalimony '#* paymentswas"intendedtoensurethatPritchett'sneedwas  assuaged,thoughitwasnotitselfintendedtoassuagetheneed." \ InreSmith,398B.R.at723.Accordingly,weconcludethat X Pritchett'sclaimisageneralunsecuredclaimnotentitledto   prioritystatusandcanbedischargedinSmith'sbankruptcy.See `  11U.S.C.523(a)(15),1328(a)(2).!   7        \   `  Affirmed.