would have required an adversary proceeding if it had been raised as an objection to the final fee application. Id. at 48. It was the failure of the former chapter 13 debtors to avail themselves of that procedure that barred their later malpractice suit under principles of res judicata. Id. at 49. Thus, it is not clear to the Court that Costa’s objections to the Dreier and MGBD fee applications become adversary proceedings pursuant to Rule 3007 under the rationale of Iannochino. ee, has raised the malpractice and fraud claims in his objections to the fee applications of Dreier and MGBD. Unlike the parties in the three circuit court cases, Costa does not have standing to bring such claims without leave of the Court. See Scott v. Nat’l Fin. Enters., Inc., 432 F.3d 557 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); DiStefano v. Stern (In re J.F.D. Enters.,
holding that the purpose of the bankruptcy codes avoidance provisions is to prevent a debtor from making transfers that diminish the bankruptcy estate to the detriment of creditors 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 the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added holding that since property of the chapter 7 estate relates back to what was property of the bankruptcy estate when the chapter 13 was commenced and since the debtor still has the vehicle in his possession the present equity in the vehicle does not belong to the chapter 7 trustee or to unsecured creditors of this estate holding creditors lacked standing to file an adversary action asserting the interests of the estate in seeking to prevent a former principal of the debtor from interfering with the chapter 11 reorganization given the lack of showing of the debtors consent and any determination by the bankruptcy court that the suit would be beneficial to the estate and necessary to a fair and efficient resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings