assessment of the constitutional issue allegedly involved in a mandatory repayment plan under the Bankruptcy Code.’’ Id. The debtors allude to similar concerns, but fail to develop such an argument. 21 . Id. at 239 n. 6. 22 . Id. 23 . See In re Ryan, 267 B.R. 635 (Bankr. N.D.Iowa 2001); In re Freunscht, 53 B.R. 110, 112 (Bankr.D.Vt.l985)(Congress intended § 707(b) to apply only -to debtors doing business; individual debtors could not be compelled to submit to a repayment plan); In re Brophy, 49 B.R. 483, 484 (Bankr.D.Hawai’i 1985) (court agreed with Graham and found that § 707(b) "was not intended to be a vehicle by which individual debtors would be forced to submit to a plan of repayment against their will.”); but see In re Lenartz, 2001 WL 35814401 at *1 (Bankr.D.Idaho May 3, 2001) (<HOLDING>). 24 . In re Lenartz, 263 B.R. 331, 335
holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions holding that the plain language of  706b authorized conversion of an individual debtor to chapter 11 over his or her objection holding that claims for alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against attorneys that represented the chapter 11 debtor in possession belonged to the bankruptcy estate and upon conversion of the case to chapter 7 such claims belonged to the chapter 7 trustee as successor to the debtor in possession holding that refusal to provide chapter 7 debtor transcript because of default on student loan was a violation of the automatic stay based on the plain language of 11 usc  362 holding that an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible for chapter 11