No. 85-576 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel, VELMA 

LOU AUSTIN, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lake, 

The Honorable C. B. McNeil, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

John Paulson, Asst. Attorney General, Helena 

John Frederick, County Attorney, Polson, Montana 

Larry J. Nistler, Deputy County Attorney, Polson 

For Respondent: 

K. M. Bridenstine, Polson, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: March 6, 1986 

Decided: June 5, 1936 

*,b t? 

Clerk 
Mr. Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Petitioner, State of Montana, brought this Uniform 

Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) action to 

enforce a child support obligation and obtain reimbursement 

for the State of Oklahoma. The Lake County District Court 

granted respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. From this order the State appeals. 

We reverse the District Court's order dismissing the 

case. We hold that the child support obligation was not 

dischargeable in bankruptcy and remand for a determination of 

the amount of arrearages which respondent is obligated to pay 

the State of Oklahoma. 

The following issues were considered on appeal: 

1. Whether the District Court's order dismissing the 

URESA petition for lack of jurisdiction is appealable. 

2. Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to 

determine the dischargeability of Oklahoma's child support 

claim under federal bankruptcy law. 

3. Whether the child support obligation was 

dischargeable under federal bankruptcy law. 

Respondent makes an additional argument based on collateral estoppel. Our decision on the nondischargeability of 

respondent's obligation makes consideration of this issue 

unnecessary. 

Respondent is the father of five minor children who 

reside with their mother in the State of Oklahoma. Respondent was divorced from the mother in February 1975 and was 

ordered to pay child support to her in the amount of $259 per 

month. Respondent did not pay the court-ordered child support, and the State of Oklahoma sought reimbursement and 
current support from respondent in a petition under the URESA 

filed November 1980 in the District Court of Lake County, 

Montana, where respondent lives. The State of Oklahoma 

sought reimbursement from respondent in the amount of 

$16,058. 

In September 1981, respondent filed a debtor's petition 

for Chapter 7 relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court in 

Missoula, listing the Oklahoma Department of Human Services 

as an unsecured creditor. 

In October 1981, respondent filed a copy of a notice of 

stay from the United States Bankruptcy Court with the State 

of Montana, indicating respondent had filed a Chapter 7 

bankruptcy petition and that certain acts and proceedings 

against respondent were stayed. In March 1982, the bankruptcy judge ordered respondent released from all dischargeable 

debts. 

In April 1985 another petition under the URESA was 

issued to respondent by the State of Montana. Respondent 

moved for dismissal claiming the Lake County District Court 

lacked jurisdiction because the claim had already been discharged in bankruptcy by the United States Bankruptcy Court 

in March 1982. The District Court granted the motion. In 

its order dismissing the action, the District Court stated 

the following: 

The [child support debt] set forth on 

schedule A-3 of respondent's bankruptcy 

petition was probably nondischargeable, 

but the bankruptcy court had exclusive 

jurisdiction to make that determination. 

From this order of the District Court, the State of Montana 

appeals. 

Respondent argues that the District Court's order is 

not a "final judgment" subject to appeal. We disagree. A 
District Court order granting a motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction is appealable. See U.S. Nat. Bank of Red Lodge 

v. Mont. Dept. of Rev. (1977), 175 Mont. 205, 573 P.2d 188. 

The second issue concerns the District Court's conclusion that the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction to 

determine the dischargeability of respondent's child support 

obligation. The District Court order was issued before our 

decision in State v. Dist. Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. 

(Mont. 1985), 710 P.2d 47, 42 St.Rep. 1773. In that case we 

determined that the district courts of this state have concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcy courts to determine 

the dischargeability of claims pertaining to child support 

under federal bankruptcy law. That decision controls here. 

We hold that the District Court has jurisdiction to determine 

the dischargeability of respondent's debt to the State of 

Oklahoma. The District Court's order dismissing the case 

must therefore be reversed. 

Because the bankruptcy discharge order only purports to 

discharge dischargeable debts, the order does not relieve 

respondent of his nondischargeable obligations. This situation makes the final issue we considered sound circular. We 

are asked to determine whether the child support obligation 

was dischargeable in bankruptcy. If the obligation was not 

dischargeable, it was not discharged in bankruptcy. 

The Bankruptcy Code specifically excludes child support 

obligations from debts that can be discharged in bankruptcy. 

11 U.S.C. $ 523 (a) (5) . We hold that respondent's child 

support obligations were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. As 

such, respondent is still obligated to pay child support. 

The District Court's order of dismissal is reversed. 

The cause is remanded to the District Court for a 
determination of the arrearages which respondent is obligated 

to pay the State of Oklahoma. We further direct the District 

Court to enter judgment that respondent's child support 

obligation remains in force and was not discharged in 

bankruptcy. 

hief Justice 

i 

We concur: