With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". While acknowledging the effect of the amendment as one which narrows the focus of the good faith inquiry on Estus “ability to pay” considerations, the Eighth Circuit preserved its traditional totality approach with regard to other Estus factors not addressed by the legislative amendments. Education Assistance Corp. v. Zellner, 827 F.2d 1222 (8th Cir.1987). In a more recent treatment of the subject, the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed its adherence to this broad “totality of circumstances” approach to specifically permit examination of the type of debt sought to be discharged, including its non-discharge-ability in Chapter 7, a factor which logically relates to the debtor’s intent and motivation in proceeding under Chapter 13. See In re LeMaire, 898 F.2d 1346, 1348-49 (8th Cir.l990)(e% banc )(<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit fashioned a similar

A: holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case
B: holding that facts as they existed on the date of the original bankruptcy petition not on the date of conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 bankruptcy applied
C: holding that a state tax lien was not judicial lien arising from judgment such that it could be avoided in bankruptcy by a chapter 13 debtor
D: recognizing that civil judgment arising from criminal act was not per se precluded from discharge under chapter 13 but record did not support finding of good faith where conduct of debtor including his prefiling conduct raised a question on issue of debtors motivation and efforts at unfairly manipulating the bankruptcy code
D.