Marvin v. Marvin (In re Marvin)

Fourth Circuit

Marvin v. Marvin (In re Marvin)

332 F. App'x 9

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 1, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1187

StatusPublished

This text of 332 F. App'x 9 (Marvin v. Marvin (In re Marvin)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marvin v. Marvin (In re Marvin), 332 F. App'x 9 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished by PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Marvin appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his complaint in which he sought a determination that his debt for attorney fees ordered in a state court proceeding was dischargeable in his bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint based on res judicata because the state court had determined that the debt was a domestic support obligation and therefore not dis-chargeable. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marvin v. Marvin, Nos. 3:08-cv-00695-RLW; 08-03071-KRH, 2009 WL 152314 (E.D.Va. Jan. 21, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished by PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Marvin appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his complaint in which he sought a determination that his debt for attorney fees ordered in a state court proceeding was dischargeable in his bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint based on res judicata because the state court had determined that the debt was a domestic support obligation and therefore not dis-chargeable. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marvin v. Marvin, Nos. 3:08-cv-00695-RLW; 08-03071-KRH, 2009 WL 152314 (E.D.Va. Jan. 21, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F. App'x 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvin-v-marvin-in-re-marvin-ca4-2009.