in Rules 3007 or 7001 appear to require an adversary proceeding simply because a claim of fraud or malpractice is made, absent a claim for affirmative relief. 2. Lack of Standing to Assert Claims In the three circuit court cases, the party raising the malpractice claim had standing to r 234 B.R. 8, 11 (D.Conn.1997) (explaining that 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(7) expressly provides that any interest in property acquired by the estate after commencement of the bankruptcy, including a cause of action, is considered to be part of the estate). After conversion of a case to chapter 7, the decision to pursue, or not to pursue, a claim belongs to the trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 323; Estate of Spirtos v. One San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Numbered SPR 02211, 443 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Bezanson, 402 F.3d at 265. Costa, not the
holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code holding claimant waived right to jury trial on claims brought against it on behalf of bankruptcy estate when it submitted its proof of claim against the estate and subjected itself to the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court holding that the bankruptcy code endows the bankruptcy trustee with the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate 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