he assigned a value of “unknown.” Id. at 942. The issue is this case, in part, involved whether a technical abandonment occurred of the songrights when his reorganization plan was confirmed. The circuit court concluded that an abandonment had occurred, entitling Cusano to postpetition royalties on his prepetition compositions and other damages accruing postpetition with respect to these prepetition compositions. Id. at 947. The court reasoned as follows: The bankruptcy code placed an affirmative duty on Cusano to schedule his assets and liabilities. Id. § 521(1). If he failed properly to schedule an asset, including a cause of action, that asset continues to belong to the bankruptcy estate and did not revert to Cusano. See Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); accord Hutchins v. IRS, 67 F.3d 40, 43 (3d
holding that the mortgaging or conveying of exempt property to a creditor is not against the public policy of the state of michigan and that that the bankrupt had the power to convey to a creditor his existing exemptions resulting in the exempt property not being property of the debtor or the debtors bankruptcy estate holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property of the estate holding that bankruptcy courts decision with respect to a creditors claim for money or for property is a final judgment and should be given the same effect as any other judgment of a competent court in a subsequent suit against the bankrupt or anyone in privity with him holding that only property administered or listed in the bankruptcy proceedings reverts to the bankrupt 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