Following trial, the Court concluded that: (1) the Debtor would not be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)(A) for committing a false oath because she had no fraudulent intent when misstating facts related to receiving certain settlement proceeds; (2) the Debtor’s debt to her landlord would not be deemed nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A) because, although she broke a promise to pay her rent arrearage out of her settlement proceeds, she intended to pay him when she made the promise and thus had no fraudulent intent; (3) the landlord failed to carry his burden in proving that the Debtor caused certain willful or malicious damage to his property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6); and (4) the Debtor was not entitled to a grant of attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. §523(d) because the landlord had a reasonable basis for his claims.