it is considered improper for a chapter 7 trustee to liquidate the asset. See e.g., In re Preston Lumber Corp., 199 B.R. 415 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1996). While the trustee’s motion to sell does not involve the sale of fully encumbered property, the property is being liquidated for the benefit of just one creditor&—the holder of the domestic support obligation claim&—rather than unsecured creditors generally. Given that the Madera County Child Support Department is collecting the claim for the benefit of the claim holder, it is clear that the assistance of the trustee, which would come at a price, is unnecessary. By enforcing the domestic support obligation in state court, the trustee’s administrative expenses will be avoided. Cf. Williams v. California 1st Bank, 859 F.2d 664 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the trustee’s objections
holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit holding that it is improper for a trustee to liquidate claims that benefit only select creditors with the only benefit to the estate being the recoupment of administrative costs recognizing that the incremental costs of appointment of a trustee typically outweigh the benefit that may accrue to the debtors estate holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate holding that there is a difference between a debtor attempting to pursue an action for his own benefit and a trustee pursuing an action for the benefit of the creditors