Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): States v. Verdunn, 89 F.3d at 802). Although the Debtor disputes whether he is liable on his unsecured debts stemming from the Michigan and Ohio law suits, the issue of whether a debtor is hable for a particular debt is separate from whether that debt is liquidated as of the filing date for purposes of § 109(e). See Slack v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (In re Slack), 187 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir.1999) (“Even if a debtor disputes the existence of liability, if the amount of the debt is calculable with certainty, then it is liquidated for the purposes of § 109(e).”); In re Sylvester, 19 B.R. at 673 (“the fact the claim was disputed was not relevant for purposes of section 109(e), and the fact it was subject to defenses and counterclaims was likewise not relevant”); In re Jordan, 166 B.R. at 202 (<HOLDING>). As the Court in In re Jordan determined, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an attempted setoff in response to a debtors postpetition lawsuit was enjoined by  524a2 notwithstanding that acts giving rise to action occurred prepetition (B) holding that legal malpractice claim against chapter 7 debtor arose prepetition when the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred and therefore was subject to the debtors discharge (C) holding disputed claim for misappropriation of funds is noncontingent and liquidated because all events giving rise to liability occurred prepetition and the amount of the debt can be calculated (D) holding that in a dispute between insurer and insured in which the insurer admitted liability hut disputed the amount of damages it was only after entry of a judgment upon that verdict that the claim became liquidated (E) holding that every prepetition debt is discharged subject to the provisions of  523
Output (English): holding that legal malpractice claim against chapter 7 debtor arose prepetition when the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred and therefore was subject to the debtors discharge