Wеstbrooke Condominium Association appeals the district court’s
I.
The following facts are undisputed. On December 18, 1990, Christian Affeldt and Susan Affeldt, Christian’s former wife, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Westbrooke Condominium Association was listed as a creditor on the Affeldts’ bankruptcy schedules. The Af-feldts received a discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 727 (1988) in March 1991.
On the same day they filed for bankruptcy, Christian and Susan were divorced. Under the terms of their divorce decree, Susan was awarded sole and exclusive ownership of the condominium that is the subject of this appeal. Christian has neither resided in the condominium, nor received any bеnefits from it, since December 18, 1990. Although the divorce decree terminated Christian’s interest in the condominium, both he and Susan are listed as its record owners.
Before the Affeldts received their § 727 discharge in bankruptcy, Westbrooke contacted Christian to dеtermine his intention to pay postpetition condominium assessments. Christian, through his attorney, suggested that Westbrooke foreclose its lien on the condominium for unpaid assessments and that he would redeem the condominium from Westbrooke after foreсlosure, thereby elimi
On April 12, 1993, Westbrooke initiated a civil suit in Minnesota state court against Christian and Susan to collect postpetition condominium assessments. On July 14,1993, Westbrooke received a default judgment of $6,694.40 against Christian and Susan in the state action. In this default judgment, the Minnesota state cоurt found that Christian and Susan were personally liable for certain dues and assessments pursuant to the Condominium Declaration which created and governed the condominium. On July 14, 1993, Westbrooke served Christian with a notice of garnishment proceedings.
On August 23, 1993, Christian initiatеd an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking: (1) injunctive relief from West-brooke’s attempts to execute the default judgment; (2) a determination that the post-petition condominium assessments had been discharged by Christian’s earlier § 727 dischargе; and (3) damages, including attorney’s fees. Both Christian and Westbrooke filed motions for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court (1) granted Christian’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the postpetition condominium assessments were discharged in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy; (2) denied Westbrоoke’s motion for summary judgment; (3) issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Westbrooke from attempting to collect the postpetition condominium assessments; and (4) reserved ruling on Christian’s request for damages and attorney’s fees pending an evidentiary hearing.
Westbrooke appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. This appeal ensued. On appeal, Westbrooke argues that the district court and bankruptcy court еrred in determining that Affeldt’s § 727 discharge encompasses postpetition condominium assessments. Af-feldt argues that we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal because it is not from a final judgment.
II.
Affeldt argues that the panel has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) (1988) to heаr this appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final. Although the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, the bankruptcy court issued a permanent injunction along with its grant of summary judgment in favor of Affeldt. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1988), we have jurisdiction over orders granting such injunctions. In Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, the Supreme Court held that we may rely on § 1292 as a basis for jurisdiction over such injunctions in bankruptcy proceedings.
III.
The issue raised in this appeal is a question of law. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo. In re Euerle Farms, Inc.,
The disсharge entered in Affeldt’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges all of Affeldt’s pre-petition debts. 11 U.S.C. § 727(b). Section 727(b) states:
Except as provided in section 523 of this title, a discharge under subsection (a) of this section discharges the debtor from all debts that arose bеfore the date of the order for relief under this chapter, and any liability on a claim that is determined under section 502 of this title as if such claim had arisen before the commencement of the case, whether or not a proof of claim bаsed on any such debt or liability is filed under section 501 of this title, and whether or not a claim based on any such debt or liability is allowed under section 502 of this title.
The creditor opposing discharge bears the burden of proving that the debt is nondisehargeable. Werner v. Hofmann,
IV.
The issue presented in this case is not new, and has resulted in a split of authorities. The cases have split into two distinctive lines, with some recent cases combining the two lines into a third line. One line holds that the debtor’s liability for condominium assessments is nondisehargeable, arising from a covenant running with the land. See, e.g., In re Rosenfeld,
The second line holds that the debtor’s liability for the assessments is dischargeable, arising from a prepetition contractual obligation. See, e.g., Matter of Rosteck,
Thus, the determinative factor in determining which line оf cases to follow is whether the condominium declaration and corresponding documents are simply a contract or constitute a covenant running with the land. Neither Westbrooke nor Affeldt submitted the condominium declaration that is at issue in this case to the bankruptcy court. The only evidence in the record concerning these documents is found in footnote one of the bankruptcy court’s opinion, which states: “It is not disputed that the Declaration and other condominium agreements were executed prepetition.” Since neither the Declaration nor any other condominium agreements
It is thus impossible to determine whether the subject condominium declaration is more akin to a contract or to a covenant running with the land. We decline to undertake this analysis in the abstract, relying solely on the Minnesota Uniform Condominium Act, without the condominium declaration and аny other pertinent documents before us. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether or not the condominium assessments are dis-chargeable. Westbrooke had the burden of introducing evidence sufficient to show that the postpetition assessments were nondis-chargeable, which it did not meet. See In re Schnabel,
V.
Because Westbrooke failed to meet its burden of proof, we affirm the decision of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. The Honorable Nancy C. Dreher, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Minnesоta.
. In 1994, Congress amended § 523 to specifically exclude certain postpetition condominium assessments from discharge. Section 523(a)(16) provides that a debtor is not discharged from any debt
for a fee or assessment that becomes due and pаyable after the order for relief to a membership association with respect to the debtor’s interest in a dwelling unit that has condominium ownership or in a share of a cooperative housing corporation, but only if such fee or assessment is payable for a period during which—
(A) the debtor physically occupied a dwelling unit in the condominium or cooperative project; or
(B) the debtor rented the dwelling unit to a tenant and received payments from the tenant for such period,
but nothing in this paragraph shall except from discharge the debt of a debtor for a membership association fee or assessment for a period arising before entry of the order for relief in a pending or subsequent bankruptcy case.
This seсtion does not benefit either Westbrooke or Affeldt because it does not apply to cases commenced under Title 11 of the United States Code before October 22, 1994. Pub.L. No. 103-394, § 702, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. (108 Stat.) 4106, 4151.
. Westbrooke stated at oral argument that neither Christian nor Susan executed any condominium agreements.
. We do not believe that Bush v. Taylor,