order disallowing ECMC’s claim discharged that debt. Also before the court is whether ECMC’s failure to object to the court’s disallowing its claim collaterally estops ECMC from collecting post-bankruptcy. For reasons that follow, the court finds in favor of ECMC on both issues. This court and other courts within this circuit have held that the disallowance of a claim does not necessarily discharge that debt. See Bell v. ECMC, 236 B.R. 426 (N.D.Ala.1999); Pearson v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. and ECMC (In re Pearson), No. 95-30158, AP No. 99-3051 (Bankr.M.D. Ga. filed Sept. 1, 2000) (Hershner, C.J.); Mathis v. Nebraska Student Loan Program, Inc. (In re Mathis), No. 95-41678, AP No. 97-4003 (Bankr.M.D. Ga. filed Nov. 20, 1997) (Laney, J.); In re Shelbayah, 165 B.R. 332, 335 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1994) (<HOLDING>). The court agrees with this line of cases. As
holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability exceptions under section 523a is preponderance of the evidence holding that the allowanceor disallowance of claims is unrelated to the dischargeability of those claims under section 523 recognizing that the power of disallowance of claims conferred on the bankruptcy courts embraces the rejection of claims in whole or in part according to the equities of the case and emphasizing that a bankruptcy court may therefore limit the amount of claims in view of equitable considerations holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied to all of the  523 dischargeability exceptions including the fraud discharge exception holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to  523 claims