its contours. Proceedings are said to arise in a Title 11 case if they are ‘“administrative matters’ that arise only in bankruptcy cases.” Wood v. Wood (Matter of Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir.1987). Certainly, that is not the case here since the claims for relief could have been made in state court in the first instance. The 10th Circuit has adopted the test for determining “related to” jurisdiction expressed in the 3rd Circuit ease of Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1984). Under that test, whether a civil proceeding is “related to” a bankruptcy case depends on “whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” Id. at 994. Gardner v. United States (In re Gardner), 913 F.2d 1515, 1518 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan has been
holding that the bankruptcy court lacks related jurisdiction to resolve controversies between third party creditors which do not involve the debtor or his property unless the court cannot complete administrative duties without resolving the controversy holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor 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 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