environment, a university may, as debt collection tactic, refuse to provide a transcript upon request, is not necessarily grounds for relief from the automatic stay as a matter of law. Rather, under the Hernandez approach, the determination whether relief from stay in favor of the university is appropriate is, like other contested matters under § 362(d), a fact-driven decision left largely to the discretion of the bankruptcy court. See generally In re Porter, 371 B.R. 739, 744-45 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007) (citing In re Wilson, 116 F.3d 87, 89 (3d Cir.1997); Matter of Holtkamp, 669 F.2d 505 (7th Cir.1982); In re Shariyf, 68 B.R. 604 (E.D.Pa.1986)). 29 . In chapter 13 cases, query whether this factor implicates 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(3). Compare In re Mason, 300 B.R. 379 (Bankr.D.Kan.2003) (<HOLDING>); In re Bentley, 266 B.R. 229 (1st Cir. BAP
holding that priority claims can be paid concurrently with other creditors over the life of a chapter 13 plan holding that the fresh start was a legitimate interest to discriminate in a plan whereby the debtor proposed to pay the student loan in full while paying 15 of the other unsecured claims holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided holding that a 56month chapter 13 plan that proposed to pay 17 of the anticipated dividend to student loan creditors while making no distribution to other unsecured creditors unfairly discriminates and could not be confirmed holding that plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class