In re Mascoll, 246 B.R. at 701, 706 (§ 523(a)(2)); In re James, 120 B.R. at 584 (§ 523(a)(2)); In re Hirte, 71 B.R. at 250 (noting that claimant’s nondischargeability complaint was time-barred by § 523(c)). Where an asserted exception to discharge relies upon none of the four waiva-ble exceptions to discharge, however, the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court is concurrent, hence nonexclusive. And since any creditor may opt to litigate, in an appropriate nonbankruptcy forum, its asserted entitlement to an exception from discharge, a debtor’s voluntary waiver of objection to such a dischargeability exception in a nonbankruptcy forum would appear to offend no established policy fostered by the Bankruptcy Code. See Saler v. Saler (In re Saler), 205 B.R. 737, 746-47 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 217 B.R. 166 (E.D.Pa.1998); see also
holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 holding that a reaffirmation agreement is enforceable as having been made predischarge where the parties agree to the terms of the proposed reaffirmation predischarge but the debtors do not sign a writing embodying the terms of their agreement until after entry of the discharge order holding  522f3 inapplicable under minnesota exemption law holding that debt ors earlier settlement of nondischargeability litigation of  523a5 exemption did not constitute reaffirmation consequently  524c by its terms held inapplicable holding that reopening a closed case to file a reaffirmation agreement is not permitted by the bankruptcy code