only issues of law. Accordingly, we review de novo the conclusions of the bankruptcy court and the district court. See Shapiro v. Saybrook Manuf. Co. (In re Saybrook Mamif. Co.), 963 F.2d 1490, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992). IV.DISCUSSION We reject Capital Factors’ argument that the funds in its possession were not property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Section 541(a)(1) defines the property of the estate to include “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C.A. § 541(a)(1) (West 1993). This language plainly includes the funds held by Capital Factors, even though those funds were subject to Capital Factors’ security interest. Cf. United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Once we have concluded that the funds were
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 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 funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property holding jurisdiction over creditor disputes only involves property of estate or resolution affects some other creditor holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property