Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (citing Mercantile Bank v. Hoyle (In re Hoyle), 183 B.R. 635, 638 (Bankr.D.Kan.1995); Bank One Columbus, N.A. v. McDonald (In re McDonald), 177 B.R. 212, 216-17 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1994); Chase Manhattan Bank v. Weiss (In re Weiss), 139 B.R. 928 (Bankr.D.S.D.1992); Household Card Serv./Visa v. Vermillion (In re Vermillion), 136 B.R. 225, 226-27 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992)). 50 . Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Hernandez (In re Hernandez), 208 A. 62 . Field v. Mans, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 437, 444, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995). See also Household Credit Serv., Inc. v. Walters (In re Walters), 208 B.R. 651, 653 (W.D.La.1997). 63 . Id. 64 . Id. (quoting, Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 541, Comment a (1976)). 65 . Id. 66 . Id. (quoting, Restatement (Second) of Tort In re Ward), 857 F.2d 1082, 1085 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Household Credit Serv., Inc. v. Walters (In 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that at a minimum a credit check must be preformed before a credit card is issued in order to have any resulting debt declared nondischargeable (B) holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income (C) holding that student debt declared nondischargeable remains subject to the automatic stay (D) holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable (E) recognizing statutory credit
Output (English): holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income