Energy, Inc. v. KPL Prod. Co. (In re Tulsa Energy, Inc.), 111 F.3d 88, 89 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting Broitman v. Kirkland (In re Kirkland), 86 F.3d 172, 174 (10th Cir.1996)). 1. 11 U.S.C. § 1327(b) The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court’s order of disgorgement was proper because the Talbots’ house was property of the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) & (c) (setting out automatic stay and providing that it remains in effect at least until property is “no longer property of the estate”). The IRS, on the other hand, contends that the Talbots’ house was not property of the estate and, accordingly, the bankruptcy court lacked the power to regulate the Talbots’ disposition of the house. See Black v. United States Postal Service (In re Heath), 115 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The resolution of this issue depends upon an
holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property of the estate holding that if dispute involves funds that are not property of estate it cannot be maintained in the bankruptcy court unless it is related to the bankruptcy proceeding which means it is likely to affect the debtors estate holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed holding that the 1994 amendment to  348 of the bankruptcy code should control in preamendment ongoing cases and that the debtors tort causes of action that accrued while the case was proceeding under chapter 13 did not become property of the estate or subject to the bankruptcy proceedings upon conversion of the case to chapter 7 proceedings 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