193 B.R. 436 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995), Judge Mitchell cited Ferebee for the principle that “[i]t is well-settled that an agreement to hold a spouse harmless on specific debts may qualify as nondis-chargeable under [§ 523(a)(5) ].” Id. at 442. Judge Mitchell noted that “[t]he inquiry is particularly fact intensive....” Id. In addressing credit card obligations, many courts have found such debts nondis-chargeable as in the nature of support largely on the basis of the parties’ disparity in income. See, e.g., Midnet v. Midnet (In re Midnet), 84 B.R. 776, 779 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1988) (discharging the credit card debt because the obligation did not terminate upon death or remarriage and there was no evidence of disparate incomes); Young v. Young (In re Young), 72 B.R. 450, 453 (Bankr.D.R.I.1987) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, courts have focused a great deal
holding that at a minimum a credit check must be preformed before a credit card is issued in order to have any resulting debt declared nondischargeable holding that the cox bankruptcy court struck a balance too harshly against a creditor when it found that credit card debt could not be found nondischargeable under section 523a2a holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income holding promise to indemnify for credit card debts to be nondischargeable support obligation in part because if the spouse were to pay the credit card and attorneys fee debts from this monthly income her ability to meet the regular monthly family expenses would be severely impaired holding nondischargeable postpetition interest on debt that was determined to be nondischargeable under section 523a2 as obtained by fraud