such property under subsection (g)(1) of this section if the trustee had avoided such transfer, if— (1) such transfer is avoidable by the trustee under section 544, 545, 547, 548, 549 or 724(a) of this title ...; and (2) the trustee does not attempt to avoid such transfer. It found Section 522 inapplicable since the transfers at issue were voluntary. Id. A majority of courts (the “Majority”) employs essentially the same statutory analysis as that of In re Higgins and holds that because of no explicit statutory authority, Chapter 13 debtors do not have standing to utilize a trustee’s avoidance powers under Chapter 5. See e.g., Stangel v. Powers (In re Stangel), 219 F.3d 498, 501 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, Stangel v. United States, 532 U.S. 910, 121 S.Ct. 1240, 149 L.Ed.2d 147 (2001) (<HOLDING>); In re Hamilton, 125 F.3d 292, 296 (stating
holding that chapter 13 debtors have standing to bring avoidance actions by reasoning that chapter 13 trustee has standing but little incentive to bring avoidance actions that will result in benefit to debtors of recovering exempt assets holding that chapter 13 debtors do not have standing to assert trustees strong arms power relying on hartford underwriters ins co v union planters bank na 530 us 1 120 sct 1942 147 led2d 1 2000 and realty portfolio inc v hamilton in re hamilton 125 f3d 292 296 5th cir1997 holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees  avoidance power holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that an order striking a standing trustees motion to convert a chapter 13 petition to a chapter 7 is interlocutory not final