of the evidence that an exception to discharge applies.” In re Cunningham, 482 B.R. 444, 447 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.2012) (citing In re Bullock, 670 F.3d 1160, 1164 (11th Cir.2012); In re Griffith, 206 F.3d 1389, 1396 (11th Cir.2000)). A debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) if it is a debt for a willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or its property. In re Santry, 481 B.R. 824, 828-29 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2012) (citing Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61, 118 S.Ct. 974, 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998)). Thus, a party objecting to a debtor’s discharge must show that the debt arose from an in e not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6). Kawaauhau, 523 U.S. at 64, 118 S.Ct. 974. Maxfield v. Jennings (In re Jennings), 670 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). For conduct to be malicious, courts typically
holding that a fraudulent transfer of property by a coconspirator constituted a willful and malicious injury under section 523a6 because the debtor transferred property without just cause in an attempt to place it beyond the reach of a creditor holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding that because debtor retained control of property a transfer had not yet occurred holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding that the mortgaging or conveying of exempt property to a creditor is not against the public policy of the state of michigan and that that the bankrupt had the power to convey to a creditor his existing exemptions resulting in the exempt property not being property of the debtor or the debtors bankruptcy estate