not occupied instead of occupied by the Defendant. See Cox v. Grube (In re Grube), No. 09-81713, 2012 WL 3263905, at *7 (Bankr.C.D.Ill. Aug. 9, 2012) (stating that “[w]here there is no depletion of a debtor’s estate because a payment , is matched by an equivalent reduction in debt, any corresponding benefit to third parties does not come at the expense of the. estate, and those parties cannot be said to have received a fraudulent transfer”). Finally, prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Debtor had the right to do whatever he wanted to do with the Lake Property, and the Trustee cannot now retroactively question his choices. To do so would exceed the statutory authority granted to bankruptcy trustees. Geltzer v. Xaverian High Sch. (In re Akanmu), 502 B.R. 124, 132-33 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2013) (<HOLDING>). The Debtor graciously chose to let his
holding unconstitutional a board of review comprised of members of congress with veto power over certain  executive functions even though the statutory scheme might prove to be innocuous holding that a trustee is not granted veto power over a debtors personal decisions at least with respect to prepetition expenditures holding unconstitutional a board of review comprised of members of congress with veto power over certain executive functions even though the statutory scheme might prove to be innocuous holding over holding that a debtors power to classify claims is limited