in order to accrue more fees. The Defendants argue that continuously objecting to the alleged misrepresentations, accusing the Defendants of inflating charges, and disputing her bills is not evidence of reliance on their alleged misrepresentations. In addressing the Court’s ability to enter a final judgment on Count III of the Plaintiffs Complaint, the Plaintiff takes the position that her fraud/intentional misrepresentation claim must be resolved in the claims allowance process because these misrepresentations induced her to enter into the 2004 and 2005 Forbearance Agreements, upon which the Defendants’ rely as a defense to the Plaintiffs allegations. A forbearance agreement is unenforceable if it is induced by fraud or bad faith. See Cook v. Cook, 299 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Ky.1957) (<HOLDING>); see also Ruckel v. Baston, 252 S.W.2d 432
holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith holding that the better rule is to allow only personal representatives not beneficiaries to sue for estateplanning malpractice because what may be good for one beneficiary is not necessarily good for the estate as a whole holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith holding forbearance to sue is a good consideration for a promise founded thereon and it is only essential that the claim be asserted in good faith holding forbearance to prosecute a doubtful claim asserted in good faith will constitute adequate consideration