Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): cases have held to the contrary. In Sikirica v. Cohen (In re Cohen), Case No. 05-38135-JAD, Adv. No. 07-02517-JAD, 2012 WL 5360956 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. Oct. 31, 2012), rev’d on other grounds, 487 B.R. 615 (W.D.Pa.2013), the court rebuffed a chapter 7 trustee’s effort to recover payments made by the debtors for tuition for their children’s undergraduate educations, holding that “[wjhile the Pennsylvania legislature has not yet enacted a statute that requires parents to pay for their children’s post-secondary education, this Court holds that such expenses are reasonable and necessary for the maintenance of the Debtor’s family for purposes of the fraudulent transfer statute only.” Cohen, 2012 WL 5360956, at *10. Accord, Shearer v. Oberdick (In re Oberdick), 490 B.R. 687, 712 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2013) (<HOLDING>). See N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 413 (in child support 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that funds paid for undergraduate college tuition for debtors children constituted expenditures for necessities that were therefore not avoidable under the pennsylvania uniform fraudulent transfer act (B) holding that debtors daughter was not liable under fraudulent transfer law for the amount her parents paid for her wedding prepetition (C) holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds (D) holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college (E) holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary
Output (English): holding that debtors daughter was not liable under fraudulent transfer law for the amount her parents paid for her wedding prepetition