With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
C: 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
D: 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
D.