that she would be able to satisfy her monthly mortgage payments on the Armonk House without the Monthly Payments under the Modification Agreement. Indeed, when the Monthly Payments were not paid by the Debtor, Young needed to liquidate certain assets to satisfy such mortgage payments. In turn, the Debtor has offered no credible evidence that his assumption of the $390,000.00 debt in the form of $4,849.16 Monthly Payments under the Modification Agreement was intended to be anything other than housing support, especially in light of the foregoing. Accordingly, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds that the Monthly Payments are in the nature of housing support and, therefore, nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(5). See generally Bonheur, 148 B.R. at 385 (<HOLDING>). With respect to whether legal fees incurred
holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance holding that a promise to pay postmajority educational expenses was nondischargeable support even though the relevant states law does not require such support past the age of majority holding that equitable distribution payments to an exwife who could not have met her expenses without such assistance was in the nature of support and thus was nondischargeable debt holding that an agreement to pay sons college education expenses was nondischargeable support even though arkansas law does not require payment of such expenses holding that payments in the nature of support need not be made directly to the spouse or dependent to be nondischargeable