With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1024-25 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996) (J. Mark) (discussing the split of authority and explaining that Congress codified the result of In re Bobroff, 766 F.2d 797 (3d Cir.1985) which encouraged the use of debt repayment plans by ensuring that property acquired post-petition would not be subject to creditors’ claims if Chapter 13 proved unsuccessful). Courts which held that property acquired post-petition must be property of the Chapter 7 estate after conversion did so because they believed such policy was “necessary to discourage strategic, opportunistic behavior that hurts creditors without advancing any legitimate interests of the debtors.” In re Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136, 137 (7th Cir.1991). Lybrook, In re Colder, 973 F.2d 862 (10th Cir.1992), and In re Lindberg, 735 F.2d 1087 (8th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), base their results on policy concerns that

A: holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises
B: holding that date of conversion determines what exemptions apply
C: holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur
D: holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes
B.