debt is merely presumed but not yet judicially determined to be nondischargeable, the automatic stay prevents university from refusing to provide transcript); Carson, 150 B.R. at 231-32 (“Once a student loan has been determined to be not dischargeable, a school may withhold ... delivery of a debtor’s transcripts as a means of collection.”). Essentially, the debtor only remained protected by the stay if there had not been a determination that the underlying debt was nondis-chargeable. Other courts, however, have employed a plain reading of § 362(a) to find a stay violation occurs and that a determination of dischargeability is irrelevant if a university refuses to provide a transcript upon request of a debtor during the pendency of the bankruptcy case. See Merchant, 958 F.2d at 741-42 (<HOLDING>); Hernandez, 2005 WL 1000059, at *3 (holding
holding that student debt declared nondischargeable remains subject to the automatic stay holding that the party challenging the dischargeability of a debt bears the burden of proving the debt nondischargeable by a preponderance of the evidence holding that even though the credit extension was a nondischargeable debt under  523a8 the university violated the stay because educational debts are not one of the listed exceptions found in  362b holding that university violated the automatic stay by withholding chapter 7 debtors transcripts because the debts were not yet determined nondischargeable holding that because nondischargeable debt based on fraud was not one of the four enumerated exceptions to exempt property the exempt property was not liable for the creditors surviving claim