Proserpina,
Please note the following (1-3 are drawn from OP's posts and 4-5 are from yours):
1. My ex-wife decided to not pay her portion of jointly held debt as required on the Property Settlement Agreement.
Covered by 11 USC 523(a)(15) if she filed a 7 or 11. In a 13, is subject to discharge unless Bk Court determines this requirement was in the "nature of support". This protects the ex spouse, not the actual creditor. Ex who filed bk will have to reimburse the ex who did not if the creditor seeks payment from him.
Please note. . . Washington is a community property state. Debts incurred during the marriage are the responsibility of both parties regardless of who signed on the dotted line and regardless of what the divorce decree says. There are a few exceptions to this rule but. . . you get the picture.
2. I was never informed of the bankruptcy by her attorney but found out later.
Actual/constructive knowledge of bk means bound by bk regardless of whether or not party was officially on the mailing matrix.
3. I know I can pay her debt and then sue and file a judgement.
Technically correct although not artfully worded. If OP is called upon to pay the obligation then he can recover from ex if ex filed the Chapter 7 or 11 but not if she filed a 13. To seek recovery when dealing with a 13 OP must get a separate determination that the obligation to pay was in the "nature of support".
4. The problem with the OP's situation is that at least in the Western District, the court has a tendency to make a clear distinction between support obligations and separation debts.
Not an issue if the ex filed a 7 or 11 since it does not matter if the obligation is support or property settlement. Neither is dischargeable. It is only an issue if the ex filed a 13. I did not see that OP mentioned which Chapter she filed.
5. OP needs to answer whether or not his decree has ANY verbiage with regards to future bankruptcy, or a "hold harmless" clause.
Again, not relevant. If the Decree assigned marital debt to the ex and, due to her bk, the underlying creditor can no longer go after her, but, instead, goes after OP and OP pays, OP has the right to recover his loss from the ex - or at least try - if the ex filed a 7 or 11.
You are correct that going after the ex may be dumb if the ex has nothing to give and no future non-exempt assets. When push comes to shove, OP's best solution may very well be filing his own bk and. . . such is the advice I give many in this type of situation. OP needs to consult with a bk attny. That does not mean he should not consult with a DR attny as well but, a DR attny is most likely not going to have the expertise to advise him of the benefits of 523(a)(15) unless he/she is well versed in both areas of the legal field.
Des.