to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every case and proceeding.”). 6 . Grossman's itself acknowledges the criticism. Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 120 ("A sister circuit has described our approach in Fren-villa as 'universally rejected.'") (citing Cadleway Props., Inc. v. Andrews (In re Andrews), 239 F.3d 708, 710 n. 7 (5th Cir.2001)). “At least one bankruptcy court has stated that Frenville 'may be fairly characterized as one of the most criticized and least followed precedents decided under the current Bankruptcy Code.’ ” Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 120 (quoting Firearms Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co. (In re Firearms Imp. & Exp. Corp.), 131 B.R. 1009, 1015 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1991)). 7 . See, e.g., Watson v. Parker (In re Parker), 313 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Cadleway Props., Inc. v. Andrews (In re
holding that exwifes interest in debtors retirement income was her sole and separate property and was therefore not subject to chapter 7 discharge holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal holding that legal malpractice claim against chapter 7 debtor arose prepetition when the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred and therefore was subject to the debtors discharge holding that an attempted setoff in response to a debtors postpetition lawsuit was enjoined by  524a2 notwithstanding that acts giving rise to action occurred prepetition holding disputed claim for misappropriation of funds is noncontingent and liquidated because all events giving rise to liability occurred prepetition and the amount of the debt can be calculated