N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.2002). In holding that Jillian’s did not have successor liability, the court of appeals re lied on Black’s Law Dictionary and on Minnesota successor-corporation law. Black’s defines a successor as “A corporation that, through amalgamation, consolidation, or other assumption of interests, is vested with the rights and duties of an earlier corporation.” Johns II, 645 N.W.2d at 766 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1446 (7th ed.1999)). Minnesota successor-corporation law, as codified by statute, provides that “The transferee is hable for the debts, obligations and liabilities of the transferor only to the extent provided in the contract * * Minn.Stat. § 302A.661, subd. 4 (2002); see also J.F. Anderson Lumber Co. v. Myers, 296 Minn. 33, 40-41, 206 N.W.2d 365, 370 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Jillian’s did not have successor-corporation
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 holding nondischargeable a debtors obligation to his former spouse under a divorce decree to assume liability for two joint debts to a third party and stating that  523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement agreements holding that when one corporation transfers its assets to another the receiving corporation is not responsible for debts of transferor unless it agrees to assume these debts holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation