hardship has been rebutted “nothing in § 524(m)(l) expressly prohibits the court from considering other factors (such as the debtor’s best interest, as under § 524(c)(6)(A)).”). Reaffirmation of the debt does not appear to provide any benefit to the Debtor. The Debtor does not reside in the Property, does not maintain any equity in the Property, and Debtor’s counsel was unable to indicate what benefit, if any, the Debtor would derive in exchange for her reaffirmation of the debt. (See Audio Recording of Hearing Held in Courtroom D, January 20, 2012 (10:19-10:21 AM)). While the Debtor’s desire to protect her co-owning daughter’s interest in the Property is understandable, it does not appear to be in the Debtor’s best interest. See In re Hoffman, 358 B.R. 889, 843-44 (Bankr.W.D.Va.2006) (<HOLDING>). Further, just because this Court will
holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child holding that reaffirming an unaffordable debt for the purpose of protecting a coobligor was not in the debtors best interest holding that a debt incurred for a personal family or household purpose is a consumer debt even though it is secured by the debtors real property holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents