Waltenspiel v. Luther

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
DANIEL JOSEPH LUTHOR, No. 05-10480
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
STACEY WALTENSPIEL,
Plaintiff(s),
v. A.P. No. 05-1067
DANIEL JOSEPH LUTHOR,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________________/
Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss
_________________
Plaintiff Daniel Luthor and defendant Stacey Waltenspiel are former husband and wife.
Waltenspiel has commenced this adversary proceeding in order to obtain a judgment that Luthor’s share
of their children’s post-dissolution medical and dental expenses are nondischargeable pursuant to §
523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. In their original 1999 dissolution decree, the parties were to share
such expenses.
Luthor has made a motion to dismiss, which the court treats as a motion for summary judgment,
Entered on Docket
August 09, 2005
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 05-01067 Doc# 11 Filed: 08/08/05 Entered: 08/09/05 09:04:18 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1Such and adversary proceeding would only be justified in the unlikely event that Luthor could
produce evidence that the debt was a disguised attempt to divide community property. See, e.g., In re
Kimball, 253 B.R. 920, 924 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho 2000). Absent such evidence, if the debt exists it will be
nondischargeable.
2
based on a state court stipulated modification of the dissolution decree providing that “as of 4/23/02,
neither party owes child or spousal support arrears to the other” and “Child support shall be zero
effective 4/23/02.” Luthor interprets this modification as eliminating all of his obligations, including the
sharing of medical and dental costs. Waltenspiel interprets it as applying only to regular support
payments but not medical and dental expenses.
The court elects to dismiss this case without prejudice because there are no bankruptcy issues.
Medical and dental expenses in the nature of support and are nondischargeable. Allen v. Allen, 275 F.3d
1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2002); Draper v. Draper, 790 F.2d 52, 54 (8th Cir. 1986). The real issue here is
whether there is still a debt, not whether the debt is nondischargeable. It is for the state court to interpret
its own judgments.
For the foregoing reasons, this adversary proceeding will be dismissed, without prejudice to a
new adversary proceeding if and when the state court determines that Luthor’s obligation to share his
children’s medical, dental and other expenses continued survived the 2002 modification of the
dissolution decree.1
Dated: August 8, 2005
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 05-01067 Doc# 11 Filed: 08/08/05 Entered: 08/09/05 09:04:18 Page 2 of 2