should not apply to a holder of a § 523 judgment because a general discharge under § 727 does not discharge a debt not dis-chargeable under § 523 and thus, it made no sense to require a creditor to wait until the general discharge is granted. 27 . In Watson, the court viewed a discharge-ability judgment as being analogous to a determination whether a claim should be allowed and, if allowed, the amount to be allowed. Neither aspect of the claims resolution process involves the grant of relief from the automatic stay. Arguments by analogy can have their limitations and I do not necessarily endorse Watson's characterization of nondischargeability judgments in its entirety. The analogy does illustrate, however, that a determination of nondis-chargeability bears no particular legal or 91) (<HOLDING>). 30 .Once the Debtor was unable to cure her
holding that plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class holding that the debtor must pay the government interest at the rate the debtor would pay a commercial lender for a loan of equivalent amount and duration considering the risk of default and any security holding that a 56month chapter 13 plan that proposed to pay 17 of the anticipated dividend to student loan creditors while making no distribution to other unsecured creditors unfairly discriminates and could not be confirmed holding that plan did not unfairly discriminate against unsecured noteholder class receiving 327 percent recovery while awarding general unsecured creditors a 100 percent recovery because differing treatment was justified holding that the fresh start was a legitimate interest to discriminate in a plan whereby the debtor proposed to pay the student loan in full while paying 15 of the other unsecured claims