to "allowed claims.” Great Lakes Higher Education Corp. v. Pardee, 218 B.R. 916, 921-922 (9th Cir. BAP 1998). Similarly, courts examining § 506(b), which allows interest on secured claims, in conjunction with Section 502, have concluded that it is necessary to examine 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5) and 502(b) to determine whether a claim may be allowable as an unsecured claim, eventually finding the term "claim” is broad enough to encompass an unliquidated, contingent right to payment even though the triggering contingency does not occur until after the filing of the petition (Woburn Assoc. v. Kahn (In re Hemingway Transport, Inc.), 954 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1992)). In re Tricca, 196 B.R. 214 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996). See also Winchell v. Town of Wilmington, 200 B.R. , 27 B.R. 137 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1983) (<HOLDING>). See also Harris v. Fort Oglethorpe State
holding that relief from the codebtor stay is mandated to the extent that the chapter 13 plan does not propose to pay the claim in full holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees  avoidance power holding that the conversion of a chapter 7 petition to a chapter 13 petition was not final until the plan itself was approved holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan holding debtors who devoted twothirds of their net disposable income to housing expenses did not propose a chapter 13 plan in good faith