Dunbar v. Dunbar
Headline: Court affirms that contracts to pay child support and a wife’s lifetime or until-remarriage support cannot be wiped out by bankruptcy, leaving family support obligations enforceable against the bankrupt spouse.
Holding: The Court held that a husband’s written promise to pay his wife’s support (during life or until remarriage) and to support his minor children is not discharged by bankruptcy under the 1898 Act.
- Parents remain responsible for child support despite bankruptcy.
- Wives’ lifetime or until-remarriage support contracts cannot be proved and discharged in bankruptcy.
- Written family-support obligations stay enforceable after bankruptcy.
Summary
Background
A husband who had obtained a divorce in Ohio made a written agreement to pay money for the support of his wife and yearly sums for his two minor children. The wife kept custody of the children. The husband later filed for bankruptcy and claimed that the written promises should be released by his bankruptcy discharge. Massachusetts courts rejected that claim, and the case reached the Supreme Court to decide whether those support promises could be proved and discharged in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the contract payments were contingent debts that could be valued and proved in bankruptcy. It explained that the wife’s support obligation was tied not only to life but to the separate contingency of whether she might remarry, a contingency the Court found essentially impossible to value with any reliable method. The English cases that estimated such value rested on different statute language. The Court also said a father’s duty to support his minor children is a legal obligation and that Congress did not intend bankruptcy to free a parent from child support. For these reasons, the Court held the support promises were not debts that could be discharged under the 1898 act.
Real world impact
People who owe family support cannot eliminate those particular written obligations through a bankruptcy discharge under the legal rules the Court applied here. The ruling keeps enforceable obligations to support minor children and prevents treating certain lifetime-or-until-remarriage support promises as dischargeable bankruptcy claims. The judgment below was affirmed.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?