Here's a summary:
1) Elliott's an asshole.
2) Basically, the magistrate (not a judge) was not familiar enough with bankruptcy law to be able to confidentally rule today. He said he needed to verify that a broken lease would, in fact, be a debt that is discharged under bankruptcy law, and that he would mail us notice of his final ruling. I have talked to several lawyers over the course of this whole thing who have ALL assured me that yes, such a debt WOULD be discharged by the bankruptcy, as long as the debt was incurred prior to filing (which is was) so I'm feeling relatively confident; even so, I'm anxious to receive the final ruling.
3) Elliott is, in fact, an asshole.