With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by Segal post-petition. Rather, the evidence unequivocally shows Segal the payments are proceeds of the pre-petition sale of the Facilities. The Bankruptcy Court thus did not err in holding Segal had failed to establish the existence of any genuine issue of material fact and any monies owed under the Consulting Agreement are not post-petition wages. Segal also argues the Consulting Agreement payments are not property of the estate because the Trustee abandoned any interest he may have had in those monies by failing to take action with respect to such payments before the bankruptcy case was closed. Because Segal did not raise this issue in the adversary proceeding, either in his Answer or in his summary judgment opposition, however, the issue is waived. See Buncher Co., 229 F.3d at 253 (<HOLDING>). In any event, Segal’s abandonment argument

A: holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
B: holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal
C: holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal
D: holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal
D.