by him. The bankruptcy court reached a similar conclusion regarding post-petition payments owed to a debtor under a pre-petition “Personal Services Consulting Agreement” in In re Luria, 175 B.R. 601 (Bankr.D.Md.1994), subsequently aff'd, 103 F.3d 118 (4th Cir.1996) (unreported). In that case, the court held the p ayments pursuant to a pre-petition non-compete agreement do not come within the earnings exception in § 541(a)(6) because a debtor’s forbearance from competition does not constitute the performance of services by the debtor. See, e.g., Andrews, 80 F.3d at 911-12; Johnson, 178 B.R. at 219-20; Unsecured Creditors Comm. v. Prince (In re Prince), 127 B.R. 187, 192 (N.D.Ill.1991), aff'd, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir.1996). But see In re Hammond, 35 B.R. 219, 223 (Bankr. W.D.Okla.1983) (<HOLDING>). Segal also argues monies owed under the
holding postconfirmation preconversion payments made by a reorganized debtor could not be recovered by the chapter 7 trustee upon conversion because the payments had been made from property which had revested in the reorganized debtor upon confirmation and was no longer property of the estate holding postpetition payments due to the debtor under a prepetition noncompete agreement were not property of the estate because the debtor had not done all acts necessary to accrue his right to the future payments holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding postpetition payments under a prebankruptcy noncompete agreement the debtor entered in connection with the sale of a business in which the debtor was a part owner were sufficiently rooted in the debtors prebankruptcy past that they belonged to the estate where the noncompete agreement was an integral part of the sale holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank