(Bankr.D.S.C.1992). 10 . See, e.g., Polishuk v. Polishuk (In re Polishuk), 243 B.R. 408, 419 (Bankr.N.D.Okla.1999) ("This Court concludes that the purpose behind requiring Mr. Polishuk to pay the Credit Card Debt was to ensure that Ms. Polishuk would not have to pay the same, and to ensure that her income would be available to pay her expenses and service her debts.”); Krein v. Hanagan (In re Krein), 230 B.R. 379, 386 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1999) (concluding that the debtor's assumption of credit card debt was in the nature of support, the court stated: “Considering the parties' financial disparities, the Court concludes Debtor’s assumption of the marital debts functioned to allow Ms. Hanagan to afford basic necessities.”); Ianke v. Ianke (In re Ianke), 185 B.R. 297, 301 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1995) (<HOLDING>); Schurman v. Schurman (In re Schurman), 130
holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income 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 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 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