to contest dischargeability did not bar creditor from bringing subsequent action in state court). As evidenced by the aforementioned cases, when concurrent jurisdiction lies in a nonbankruptcy court, a debtor may invoke any defenses provided by the bankruptcy code, e.g., dischargeability of a student loan based on the passage of time or on undue hardship. See Perkins, 228 B.R. at 433. Due to the Bankruptcy Code’s goal to provide a debtor the ability to obtain a fresh start and in light of the importance of transcripts to this Debtor’s endeavor to find gainful employment or to continue her education, this court believes it would be appropriate to permit the Debtor to pursue her dischargeability action against NSU in state court. See In re Reese, 38 B.R. 681, 683 (Bankr.N.D.Ga. 1984) (<HOLDING>). Leave such as this certainly squares with the
holding rehabilitation act applicable recognizing the importance of grand jury secrecy recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability recognizing the diminished importance of the state policy factor recognizing importance of transcript to rehabilitation of debtor