amount of $30,000.00 (the “Post-Petition Retainer”). Not surprisingly, the estate’s creditors were interested in the source of the Post-Petition Retainer and addressed the subject at the August 28th hearing. When asked about the source of the retainers received by the Winterhalter Firm, the Debtor admitted that he personally directed Curtis Investors to pay the Post-Petition Retainer to the Winterhalter Firm. Transcript 8/28/2012, 106:9-11. He further explained: He gets paid by me or my controller, making sure that he gets paid. I’m sure it’s a — somehow, some money that I have control over a partnership and— and he’d have to get paid, I believe. I don’t have money sitting in an account right now that I can go cut another check to him. Transcript 8/28/2 458, 462 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.1996) (<HOLDING>); In re Perrysburg Marketplace Co., 176 B.R.
holding that a postpetition claim under section 1305 is a liability that arises postpetition and relates only to postpetition activity 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 without elaboration that funds in debtors bank account arising from workers compensation payments remained exempt recognizing that an attorney hired to represent a debt or is not employed in the ordinary course recognizing that postpetition payments to debtors attorney may not be characterized as ordinary course transaction exempt from 363bls notice and hearing requirements