Thus, in fact, under this record only about $350 of the surplus remains in the household budget that could be attributed to the debtor’s income. This analysis is supported by the following cases: In re Innes, 284 B.R. 496, 507-08 (D.Kan.2002) (“[T]he bankruptcy court correctly considered all of [the non-debtor spouse’s] disposable income and applied the proportionate share of her income to the family’s essential or basic living expenses. To require her to do more would essentially force her (or her children) to pay debts for which she is not liable and support [the debtor husband] while being denied the right to apply some of her income to reasonable non-luxury items, such as the children’s education, and a modest retirement fund.”); In re Berndt, 127 B.R. 222, 225 (Bankr.D.N.D.1991) (<HOLDING>). The strongest case in support of the
holding that a debtor has primarily consumer debts if the aggregate amount of consumer debt is more than 50 of the total debt holding that a debtor was not acting in bad faith when he converted a case under chapter 7 to a case under chapter 13 for the purpose of discharging a debt for fraud but it was a fact which could be considered holding in a chapter 7 consumer debt case the nondebtor spouses income is not  rendered liable for the debts of the debtor but rather is simply  considered in determining whether the debtor himself has available discretionary income by virtue of the fact that he and the nondebtor spouse share a joint household holding that where a married debtor files an individual bankruptcy case and claims the  522b3b tbe exemption the debtor indirectly obtains the benefit of floridas constitutional homestead protection by virtue of the nondebtor spouses ability to claim the homestead exemption holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support