not require the debtor to perform any particular services but only to hold himself available to consult as called upon, and (3) compensated the debtor according to a fixed, front-loaded payment schedule which did not correlate to the actual services provided by the debtor, who received the first several monthly payments without rendering any services. Id. at 605-07. Nor does the inclusion of a non-compete provision in the Consulting Agreement alter the Court’s analysis. To the contrary, as other federal courts have recognized, post-petition payments under a pre-petition non-compete agreement are property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate where, as here, the non-compete agreement was intertwined with the pre-petition sale of the debtor’s business. See, e.g., Andrews, 80 F.3d at 910-11 (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 178 B.R. at 218-19 (holding payments
holding postpetition payments due to the debtor under a prepetition noncompete agreement were not property of the estate because the debtor had not done all acts necessary to accrue his right to the future payments holding noncompete payments were not exempt from the debt ors bankruptcy estate as earnings from postpetition services under  541a6 because the noncompete agreement was inextricably intertwined with the debtors sale of stock that was an includable bankruptcy asset that predated debtors bankruptcy petition holding contingent prepetition property rights were sufficiently rooted in the prebankruptcy past to be part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 usc  541 holding postpetition payments under a prebankruptcy noncompete agreement the debtor entered in connection with the sale of a business in which the debtor was a part owner were sufficiently rooted in the debtors prebankruptcy past that they belonged to the estate where the noncompete agreement was an integral part of the sale holding that in the absence of a hold harmless agreement a former spouse has no claim against the debtor to pay a debt listed on the divorce agreement as belonging to the debtor because such a debt is not incurred in connection with the divorce but was incurred in connection with the debtors and former spouses original transaction with the creditor