Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): class or classes of unsecured claims, as provided in section 1122 of this title, but may not discriminate unfairly against any class so designated; however, such plan may treat claims for a consumer debt of the debtor if an individual is liable on such consumer debt with the debtor differently than other unsecured claims.” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1). There is a split among bankruptcy courts concerning whether a plan that gives priority to a cosigned consumer debt should still be struck down if it is found to “discriminate unfairly” against any other class. Compare,. e.g., Nelson v. Easley (In re Easley), 72 B.R. 948, 955-56 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1987) (finding that even a cosigned consumer debt is subject to the unfair discrimination test), with In re Dornon, 103 B.R. 61, 64 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>). The argument for applying the unfair 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing general rule (B) recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception (C) holding that a cosigned consumer debt is an exception to the general unfair discrimination rule (D) recognizing fundamental error as an exception to the general rule of preservation (E) recognizing lujanarmendariz as the exception to the general rule
Output (English): recognizing fundamental error as an exception to the general rule of preservation