argues that this Court should join those courts that have held a debtor’s remainder interest in a spendthrift trust upon termination of the trust is part of the bankruptcy estate. See In re Britton, 300 B.R. 155 (Bankr.D.Conn. 2003); In re Crandall, 173 B.R. 836 (Bankr.D.Conn.1994); Matter of Strasma, 26 B.R. 449 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1983). Plaintiff insists that if the debtor holds an interest in the corpus of a spendthrift trust upon its termination, “then those funds cannot, by the plain language of the trust, be subject to the spendthrift clause which ne sylvania law to provide spendthrift protection to debtor’s remainder interest in the corpus of a trust and to exclude the debtor’s interest in the corpus from the bankruptcy estate); In re Katz, 220 B.R. 556, 565 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1998) (<HOLDING>); cf. In re Will of Rintz, 2007 Phila. Ct. Com.
holding that when the debtors entire interest in a trust was protected by a valid spendthrift provision the debtor could not assign his interest in either the principal or the income before they were distributed holding that a spendthrift clause in a trust did not preclude accrued income from being paid to a beneficiarys personal representatives holding that the interest of the public  especially the debtor and creditors  could limit compensation to a debtors counsel holding that attempted conveyance of remainder interest in a trust was invalid because the spendthrift provision prohibited beneficiary from making any binding commitment of principal or income during the life of the trust holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust