her ex-husband’s $8,000 interest in her pension plan should be discharged in her bankruptcy proceeding. B. Application of Persuasive Caselaw to the Case at Bar In granting summary judgment for Husband, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that, although payment of pension proceeds would occur in the future (at retirement), a property interest was transferred by force of the August, 1992 Order and, as such, Husband’s interest was not a “debt” subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C.A. § 523. The case-law cited above, although not controlling on this Court, is persuasive ng that state divorce judgment awarding debtor's wife 38% of husband’s military retirement pension granted the wife a nondischargeable property interest in that portion of the pension), Williams v. Califf, 195 B.R. 499 (N.D.Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>); Walston v. Walston, 190 B.R. 66
holding that legal malpractice claim against chapter 7 debtor arose prepetition when the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred and therefore was subject to the debtors discharge holding that a debtors interest in a tenancy by the entirety is property of the bankruptcy estate under section 541 because of debtors undivided present interests in the use possession income and right of survivorship of the property holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that a debtors right to convert his or her chapter 7 case is not absolute holding that exwifes interest in debtors retirement income was her sole and separate property and was therefore not subject to chapter 7 discharge