Zamos

MEMORANDUM **

Jerome Zamos appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s determination that spousal support payments Jerome owed to his ex-wife, Patricia Zamos, are nondisehargeable debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction pur *452 suant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d) and 1291, and we affirm.

At the time Jerome filed for bankruptcy, § 523(a)(5)(B) provided:

We look to the parties’ intent at the time of a separation agreement to determine whether a payment “is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.” In re Sternberg, 85 F.3d 1400 , 1405 (9th Cir.1996) (emphasis added), rev’d on other grounds, In re Bammer, 131 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Because, as the bankruptcy court found, the Zamos’s marital settlement agreement in 1982 clearly intended that Jerome was to pay spousal support to Patricia, this debt is nondischargeable. We reject Jerome’s attempt to link the spousal support payments with the equalization payments.

Jerome’s contention that the California Superior Court had no jurisdiction to issue its judgment in Patricia’s favor in 2000 also lacks merit. See In re Siragusa, 27 F.3d 406 , 407-08 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that state court had…