neither proves nor disproves the question of whether the debt that is the subject of the reaffirmation agreement would have been held to be nondischargeable if the creditor had filed a nondischargeability adversary proceeding regarding that debt and the court had adjudicated that adversary proceeding. Because of its voluntary nature, a reaffirmation agreement that is not approved by a subsequent court order can have no pre-clusive effect regarding the question of whether the debt reaffirmed would have been held to be nondischargeable if the nondischargeability issue had been litigated. Thus, a reaffirmation agreement unaccompanied by a court order is.not a final judgment on the merits and cannot be given preclusive effect. See In re Johnson, 255 B.R. 696, 698 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2000) (<HOLDING>). Providian argues unpersuasively that our
holding that a bankruptcy court is given wide discretion to convert a chapter 11 case to chapter 7 for cause and an order for conversion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that stipulation of nondischargeability in a prior chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding unaccompanied by a court order had no preclusive effect in a subsequent chapter 7 case holding that the texas proceeds rule is only applicable in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case and would not apply where the debtor sells homestead property postpetition in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7 holding that facts as they existed on the date of the original bankruptcy petition not on the date of conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 bankruptcy applied