objected to Penn's proof of claim and, therefore, the claim has been allowed. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). The notes attached to the proof of claim are dated between May 22, 1997 and September 27, 2000. Since the last note signed was apparently for the 2000-01 academic year, it is reasonable to infer from the documents attached to the proof of claim that t 538 (Bankr. D.Mass.2005) (concluding that university’s act of refusing to allow chapter 7 debtor from registering for class and from graduation was both violation of the automatic stay and the discharge injunction); In re Walker, 336 B.R. 534, 536 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2005) (considering whether private university violated 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 525 by withholding chapter 13 debtor's transcript); In re Reese, 38 B.R. 681, 683 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1984) (<HOLDING>); In re Ware, 9 B.R. 24, 25 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1981)
holding that when a state court judgment was found not to be dischargeable under 11 usc  523a6 the associated attorneys fees were also not dischargeable holding  525 applies only where debt dischargeable holding that state university violated 11 usc  362 and 525 by withholding debtors transcript where debt was dischargeable holding that university violated automatic stay by withholding chapter 13 debtors student transcript but that such action at bar did not rise to the level of contempt holding that  525 applies only where the debt in question is dischargeable