PREFERENCE LITIGATION

(B)

in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support including assistance provided by a governmental unit) of such spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor or such child's parent, without regard to whether such debt is expressly so designated;

(C)

established or subject to establishment before, on, or after the date of the order for relief in a case under this title, by reason of applicable provisions of-

(i)

a separation agreement, 'divorce decree, or property settlement agreement;

(ii)

an order of a court of record; or

(iii) a determination made in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law by a governmental unit; and not assigned by a nongovernmental entity, unless that obligation is assigned voluntarily by the spouse, former spouse, child of the debtor, or such child's parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative for the purpose of collecting the debt.

11 U.S.C. S 101.

This qualification is identical to the qualification contained within the dischargeability provisions of Code S 523(a)(5), and thus, the case law relating to that section would be applicable in interpreting this section.

K. Section 547(c)(8) - "De Minimis" Transfers in Consumer Cases.

The trustee cannot avoid a transfer if, in a case filed by an individual debtor whose debts are primarily consumer debts, the aggregate value of all property that constitutes or is affected by such transfer is less than $600. The "small preference" exception reduces litigation over relatively nominal payments made to creditors of consumer debtors which do not seriously impinge upon the goals of equality of treatment and avoidance of undue pressure for payment. See, e.g., In re Djerf, 188 B.R. 586 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995).

11 U,S.C. S 8 defines "consumer debt" as a "debt incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose." "Consumer debt" can include debts secured by real estate. E.g., McDaniel v. Nationwide, 85 B.R: 69 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1988). Generally, notwithstanding use of singular term "transfer" in (c)(6), courts have held that multiple transfers of less than $600 to the same creditor can be aggregated to remove payments from the exception. See, e.g., Matter of Hailes, 77 F.3d 873 (5th Cir. 1996); In re Clark, 217 B.R. 89 (W.D. Ky. 1995); In re Alarcon, 186 B.R. 135 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1995); but see In re Nelson, --- B.R. ---, 2009 WL 3831538 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2009) (separate prepetition garnishments of less than $600 each were not aggregated even though in