at the time he filed the Chapter 13 petition. Second, Love argues that the bankruptcy court made an error of law when it looked to the plan to support its finding that Love filed the petition in bad faith. That is, Love argues that by relying on information contained or omitted in the plan, the bankruptcy court ignored the distinction between the good faith necessary for the confirmation of a plan under Section 1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and the good faith necessary for the filing of a petition under Section 1307(c). Love asserts that this court requires these two good faith determinations be strictly separated. Love is right in that the good faith analy-ses under Sections 1307(c) and 1325(a) are not identical. See In re Madison Hotel Assoc., 749 F.2d 410, 425 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). That is, the good faith inquiry under Section
holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive 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 denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory holding that the conversion of a chapter 7 petition to a chapter 13 petition was not final until the plan itself was approved holding that the good faith analysis for evaluating a chapter 11 petition and that in evaluating a chapter 11 plan are distinct