ex-spouse or child of the debtor and not one of the three payees expressly named in the statute. In re Kline, 65 F.3d at 751. Accord, Williams v. Kemp (In re Kemp), 232 F.3d 652 (8th Cir.2000) (affirming the lower courts’ rulings that debts owed to debtor’s child’s mother for birth expenses, necessities and child support were nondisehargeable even though child’s mother was not a payee named in the statute). Pre-BAPCPA, the rule in these exception to discharge cases was equally applicable to the issue of whether a claim was entitled to priority in a chapter 13 case because identical language was used to describe both the nondisehargeable debt under section 523(a)(5) and the claim entitled to priority under 507(a)(7). Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang), 163 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir.1998)(<HOLDING>). Prior Sections 523(a)(5) and 507(a)(7)
recognizing district court application of the same rule holding that identical language in montana postconviction relief statute bars application of laches holding that section 92434 could be unconstitutional in application recognizing that application of section 507a7 should be coincidental with application of section 523a5 because of identical language in the two statutes recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical