of § 1328(a)(3)); Richardson v. Hidy Honda, Inc. (In re Richardson), 221 B.R. 956, 962 (D.Wyo.1998) (concluding that a chapter 7 debtor’s execution of a promissory note evidencing his restitutionary obligation to the victim of his criminal embezzlement did not transform the nature of the debtor’s obligation from a nondischargeable debt for the debtor’s embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) into a dischargeable contractual obligation; rather, in ruling on the dischargeability of the debtor’s obligation on the promissory note, the bankruptcy court could inquire into the circumstances surrounding the debtor’s execution of the note to ascertain whether the debt was derived from the debtor’s alleged embezzlement); McIntyre v. White (In re McIntyre), 328 B.R. 356, 361-62 (Bankr.D.Mass.2005) (<HOLDING>); Ramey v. Barton (In re Barton), 321 B.R. 869,
holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute holding that the untimely death of a nondebtor spouse does not transform past due alimony into a dischargeable debt through an assignment by operation of law which would result in excepting the debt from nondischargeability under  523a5 as such an absurd result would be at odds with the intent of the drafters of the bankruptcy code holding that  525 applies only where the debt in question is dischargeable holding that effect of bankruptcy discharge under arizona law is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debtor