of the estate or whether it is maintenance which is nondischargeable. The pension distribution in the final judgment for divorce was embodied in the QDRO, issued on the same day as the divorce judgment. Kruger v. Kruger, 73 N.J. 464, 471, 375 A.2d 659 (1977) held that pensions are property subject to equitable distribution. See also Kikkert v. Kikkert, 177 N.J.Super. 471, 427 A.2d 76 (App.Div.1981), aff'd o.b., 88 N.J. 4, 438 A.2d 317 (1981). However, there is an exception to treating pension benefits embodied in a QDRO as a dischargeable property debt. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(3)(1979). In re Eichelberger, 100 B.R. 861 (Bankr.S.C.Tex.1989) held that required payments under a QDRO escape discharge in bankruptcy. Id. at 866; see also Bush v. Taylor, 912 F.2d 989, 994 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. Justus v. Justus, 581 N.E.2d 1265,
holding that as with a promissory note when the final payment was made on a support judgment the obligation was discharged and after that date husband had no obligation that could support a modification holding lost pension benefits recoverable as front pay holding that a debtors obligation to repay a pension plan loan is a debt because the plans right to offset the obligation against future benefits constitutes a method of enforcement sufficient to create a right to payment holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation