DISCUSSION

Husband, representing himself on appeal, contends:

“The Family Court lost it’s [sic] Jurisdiction over payment of any equalization payment when [he] received his chapter 13 discharge per [title 11 United States Code section 1328(a).]”3

3 We decline to address any contentions that are not listed “under a separate heading or subheading” in Husband’s opening brief, in violation of rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) of the California Rules of Court. (See, e.g., Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 314, fn. 24; Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542.)

3. “Property settlement payments ordered in dissolution proceedings to effect the equitable division of community property, as opposed to payments for spousal or child support, are dischargeable in bankruptcy.” (In re Marriage of Lynn (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 120, 125; see 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5), 727.) “[T]he discharge of a debt in bankruptcy operates as an injunction prohibiting a creditor thereafter from taking any action to collect or recover the debt.” (In re Marriage of Lynn, supra, at p. 125.) “A debtor who completes his payments under a Chapter 13 plan is entitled to a broad discharge of ‘all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 of [the bankruptcy code]. . . .’ ” (Ellett v. Stanislaus (9th Cir. 2007) 506 F.3d 774, 777, quoting 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).) “[T]he phrase ‘provided for’ in section 1328(a) [of title 11 of the United States Code] simply requires that for a claim to become dischargeable the plan must ‘make a provision for’ it, i.e., deal with it or refer to it.” (In re Gregory (9th Cir. 1983) 705 F.2d 1118, 1122; see, e.g., Ellett v. Goldberg (E.D. Cal. 2005) 328 B.R. 205, 207 [appellant debtor identified appellee agency as unsecured creditor in schedules].) “An unlisted debt is not one provided for by the plan. It does not enter into consideration in determining whether the plan meets the requirements for confirmation and it does not share in the distribution under the Chapter 13 plan.” (In re Schroff (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1988) 94 B.R. 279, 282.)4 Here, the record contains a “CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT.” Under the heading “Scheduled Creditors,” Husband’s various “Secured,” “Unsecured,” and “Priority” creditors are listed. However, there is no mention of any property settlement payments owed to Wife. (Cf. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. v. Reed (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1319 [husband’s equalization payment listed as claim in bankruptcy proceeding].)

4Although decisions of lower federal courts are not binding on California courts, even on questions of federal law, they nonetheless are persuasive authority. (Rubin v. Ross (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 153, 163.)

4. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608- 609.) “ ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.” ’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 609.) In view of the record, we conclude Husband failed to establish that the superior court committed an error that justifies reversal of the October 8, 2019 judgment.5

DISPOSITION

The October 8, 2019 judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent Guadalupe Capozzi.

DETJEN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

FRANSON, J.

MEEHAN, J.

5Having considered the merits of this appeal, we deny Wife’s March 3, 2021 motion to dismiss.

5.