Accordingly, the Court must first determine whether a debt is owed to the Plaintiff, and if so in what amount. If a debt is the kind described in § 523(a)(15), it is nondischargeable unless one of two tests is satisfied: (1) the debtor is unable to pay the debt from income or property not reasonably necessary for maintenance or support; or (2) the benefits of a discharge to the debtor outweigh the detrimental effects of such a discharge on a spouse, former spouse, or child.See Hadley, 239 B.R. at 436; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998). Thus, the Plaintiff must show that neither of these two tests is satisfied. If either of the two tests is satisfied, then the debt is dischargeable.
See Plaintiff's Complaint and Debtor's Answer. Accordingly, the threshold requirements of § 523(a)(15) are satisfied. Once these initial requirements are met, § 523(a)(15) presumes the relevant debt to be nondischargeable, unless either one of two conditions is shown to exist: (A) the debtor is unable to pay the debt; or (B) the benefits of a discharge to the debtor outweigh the detrimental effects of such a discharge on a spouse, former spouse, or child. See Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr. D.Minn. 1998). Thus, if either of these conditions can be shown to exist, then the relevant debt is dischargeable. Viewed from the Plaintiff's perspective, both of these conditions must be shown not to exist for the debt to remain nondischargeable (i.e., it must be shown that the debtor is able to pay the debt and that the detrimental effects of the discharge to the spouse, former spouse, or child outweigh the benefit to the debtor).
"For purposes of... [§ 523(a)(2)(A)], it is true, the misrepresentation generally must 'relate to a present or past fact,' and a promise to pay in future, even if false, is not such a misrepresentation." Brzakala, 305 B.R. at 711 (citing Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 496 (Bankr. D.Minn. 1998)). "A promise to pay made with a present intention not to perform, however, will satisfy the misrepresentation requirement."
§ 1325(b), the "disposable income test" is a good starting point for the analysis. In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. at 142; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998); In re Hill, 184 B.R. at 755. However, the scope of the court's inquiry must necessarily be broad in order to determine the debtor's actual ability to pay.
The Court also considers any income earned by Debtor's spouse or live-in companion. Eiklenborg, 286 B.R. at 722 (citing In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491 (Bankr. D.Minn. 1998)). The Shea court stated:
In considering Debtors ability to pay this debt, the Court may consider the income of a new spouse. Eiklenborg, 286 B.R. at 722 (citing In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998)). The court in Shea stated:
As the language is almost identical to that of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), the "disposable income test" is a good starting point for the analysis. In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. at 142; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998); In re Hill, 184 B.R. at 755. However, the scope of the court's inquiry must necessarily be broad in order to determine the debtor's actual ability to pay.
When conducting a § 523(a)(15) analysis, it is appropriate for a court to take into account the income of a second spouse or live-in companion. In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998). The court in Shea stated:
When conducting a § 523(a)(15) analysis, it is appropriate for a court to take into account the income of a second spouse. In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998). The court in Shea stated:
As the language is almost identical to that of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), the "disposable income test" is a good starting point for the analysis. In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. at 142; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998); In re Hill, 184 B.R. at 755. However, the scope of the court's inquiry must necessarily be broad in order to determine the debtor's actual ability to pay.