in contempt, “there must be a clear and unequivocal [order] and an equally clear and undoubted disobedience.” Parker v. Commonwealth, 448 Mass. 1021, 863 N.E.2d 40 (2007) (citing Nickerson v. Dowd, 342 Mass. 462, 174 N.E.2d 346 (1961)). Courts have often held that a violation of a court order resulting in an order of contempt satisfies the willful and malicious requirements of § 523(a)(6). See, e.g., Musilli v. Droomers (In re Musilli), 379 Fed.Appx. 494, 499 (6th Cir.2010); Siemer v. Nangle (In re Nangle), 274 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir.2001) (finding debtor’s conduct in disobeying court order willful and malicious because it targeted creditor and was almost certain to cause harm); Williams v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 520 (In re Williams), 337 F.3d 504, 511-13 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Dentrust Dental Int’l v. Rosenberg (In re
holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding llcs were entitled to notice of proceedings supplemental instituted by a judgment creditor to attempt to obtain judgment debtors interests in the companies to pay judgment debt holding the judgment premature citing one case holding the judgment void and another holding the judgment irregular holding contempt judgment resulting from debtors violation of agreed judgment nondischargeable under  523a6 because judgment had made him substantially certain that his acts would inflict injury should he not comply with its directives holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law