(quoting In re Mayeaux, 269 B.R. 614, 623 (Bankr.E.D.Tex.2001)). This court is also persuaded that the broad interpretation of the phrase “in connection with the case” employed in the context of section 329 is equally applicable to the phrase “in connection with the bankruptcy case” contained in section 330(a)(4)(B). See In re Powell, 314 B.R. 567, 570-71 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2004) (phrase in section 330(a)(4) includes any services that could have conceivable effect on Chapter 13 case); see also In re Busetta-Silvia, 314 B.R. 218, 224 n. 30 (10th Cir. BAP 2004) (citations omitted) (noting that pre-petition fees may be entitled to administrative expense under section 330(a)(4) based on broad reading of “in connection with the case” in section 329); of. In re Campbell, 259 B.R. at 626 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted)). The services that the
holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding that the phrase such gaming in igra does not include all class iii gaming holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case recognizing that the phrase does not include every service rendered to debtor holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service