spent on appellate work. The result is not that clear-cut, however. As Schumann holds, Section 330 is not the “usual” sort of fee-shifting statute in that it contains no “prevailing party” provision. See Grant v. George Schumann Tire & Battery Co., 908 F.2d 874 (11th Cir.1990). While a debtor or creditor may prevail in one or more of the many disputes which arise in the course of a typical Chapter 11 reorganization, almost everyone loses something____ The language of § 330 does not authorize the court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Rather the statute authorizes the court to award “reasonable compensation” for actual, necessary services rendered---- Id. at 882. See Port Royal Land & Timber Company v. Berkowitz, Lefkovits, Isom, Kushner, 924 F.2d 208 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Although it has been recognized that the
holding that bankruptcy court erred by not awarding fees for unsuccessful litigation even though the effort was found to have been actually made reasonable and necessary to the faithful representation of the bankruptcy estate holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed holding that the district court sitting in review of the decision of the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failure to pay over taxes was willful because the bankruptcy court had made no findings on willfulness we remanded for bankruptcy court findings holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code