the effect of withdrawing the fact from contention. While recognizing that there appear to be no published Massachusetts cases specifically addressing whether sale proceeds of an exempt asset remain exempt, the Debtor, citing Reed v. Yochem (In re Reed), 184 B.R. 733 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1995), and In re Feiner, No. 02-12235-JNF, Slip op. (Bankr.D.Mass. March 7, 2003), argues that “the substantial majority of courts have [sic] considered this issue and ruled, consistent with the clear wording of the statute, that a post-petition transformation of exempt property into a form of property which could not be exempt under state law, does not render the property suddenly available to creditors.” He concludes, based upon S & C Home Loans, Inc. v. Farr (In re Farr), 278 B.R. 171 (9th Cir. BAP 2002)(<HOLDING>), that the net sale proceeds from the Property
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 holding that in a chapter 7 case postpetition interest on a nondischargeable tax claim is also nondischargeable holding nondischargeable a debtors obligation to his former spouse under a divorce decree to assume liability for two joint debts to a third party and stating that  523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement agreements holding punitive damages nondischargeable under  523a6 when such damages are based on the same conduct as the underlying nondischargeable judgment holding that only property exempted under  522 is protected from the reach of holders of nondischargeable debts