the universe of payees has expanded to include the child’s parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative. BAPC-PA also now provides that a DSO may be “owed to or recoverable by” the payees named in the statute. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) (2006) (italics added). This new definition has spawned several lines of case law. Some courts infer that by identifying the universe of payees, Congress reinforced the restrictions on who could assert a DSO. See Tucker v. Oliver, 423 B.R. 378, 379-81 (W.D.Okla.2010); see also In re Aguirre, Bankr.No. 11-41126-JDP, 2012 WL 632400 (Bankr.D.Idaho Feb. 27, 2012). Other courts read the new language to include obligations to make payments to third parties that are recoverable by a former spouse. See, e.g., In re Johnson, 397 B.R. 289, 295 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). Other courts continue to ignore the payee
holding nondischargeable a debtors obligation to his former spouse under a divorce decree to assume liability for two joint debts to a third party and stating that  523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement agreements holding where a debtor does not exercise hisher right to designate which one of several debts to which a payment should be applied creditor may apply payment as he she chooses even if there is a surety or guarantor liable on one of the debts holding that when one corporation transfers its assets to another the receiving corporation is not responsible for debts of transferor unless it agrees to assume these debts holding that although a corporate officer is not presumed to be personally liable for corporate debts the officer may expressly bind himself or herself to be answerable for such debts holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support