Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• suggesting that the debtor lacks the requisite control to the extent the loan is undersecured
• indicating that the control doctrine is implicated “ ‘[w]here there is a question as to the debtor’s ownership of the money ” (citation omitted)
• explaining that “in the context of transfers by third parties, the diminution of estate doctrine asks whether the debtor controlled the property to the extent that -7- he owned it and thus the transfer diminished his estate”
• following Decker and holding that payment of funds to creditor was only voidable to the extent of value of security debtor gave third party in exchange for transfer
• describing “the ‘earmark’ rule” as holding that “funds loaned to a debtor that are ‘earmarked’ for a particular creditor do not belong to the debtor because he does not control them”
• describing “the ‘earmark’ rule” as holding that “funds loaned to a debtor that are ‘earmarked’ for a particular creditor do not belong to the debtor because he does not control them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).