Kelley v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank of Thomasville (In re Adams), 102 B.R. 271 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1989).
By joining the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits in adopting a date of honor rule for section 547(b), we also join the majority of bankruptcy and district courts which have decided this issue. See, e.g., Chaitman v. Chicago Boiler Co. (In re Almarc Mfg., Inc.), 52 B.R. 582, 583-84 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1985); Kelley v. Citizens Southern Nat'l Bank (In re Adams), 102 B.R. 271, 273-74 (Bankr.M.D.Ga. 1989); Putney v. Barnett Bank of Central Fla. (In re W T Enters., Inc.), 84 B.R. 838, 839 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1988); In re All American of Ashburn, 95 B.R. at 252; In re AMWC, 94 B.R. at 432; In re Newman, 83 B.R. at 573; Cimmaron Oil Co. v. Schlumberger Well Services, Inc. (In re Cimmaron Oil Co., Inc.), 88 B.R. 103, 104-05 (N.D.Tex. 1987); Tolz v. Double Envelope Corp. (In re Sunup/Sundown, Inc.), 65 B.R. 696, 697 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1986); In re Compton, 55 B.R. at 182; LaBarge v. Tubular Steel, Inc. (In re Midwest Boiler Erectors, Inc.), 54 B.R. 793 (Bankr.E.D.Mo. 1985); Remes v. Acme Carton Corp. (In re Fasano/Harriss Pie Co.), 43 B.R. 871 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1984), aff'd 71 B.R. 287 (W.D.Mich.
Buckley v. Jeld–Wen, Inc. (In re Interior Wood Prods. Co.), 986 F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir.1993); In re Adams, 102 B.R. 271, 274–75 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1989). As recognized in Feltman v. Bd. of County Comm'rs (In re S.E.L. Maduro (Florida), Inc.), 205 B.R. 987 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.
Absent an escrow arrangement whereby an equitable interest vests in the creditor, it is clear that the general rule applies and a judgment lien creditor of the debtor could acquire a superior interest in funds held by an agent of the debtor. See Center v. McQuesten, 18 Kan. 476 (1877) (holding that money in the hands of an agent to pay debts of principal to one creditor is liable to garnishment by another creditor and creditor has no better right to recover money than debtor/principal would have had); Wilkerson v. Olcott, 212 So.2d 119, 120-21 (Fla.App. 1968) (funds in attorney's trust account for a specific purpose were subject to garnishment where client would have been entitled to funds upon demand); See also In re Adams, 102 B.R. 271, 273-75 (Bankr. M.D.Ga. 1989) (where payment was deposited in attorney's trust account, attorneys served as merely agents and funds in question would have been property of the estate); In re ABW, Inc., 29 B.R. 88, 89-90 (Bankr.D.Nev. 1983) (where funds placed by debtor in an impound account were not considered in escrow, there was nothing to prevent the debtor from withdrawing the funds and the funds constitute property of the estate). The Court finds that the elements necessary to establish that the funds placed in Brown, Koralchik's Trust Account were held in escrow" are missing in the present case and that there is no evidence of an escrow agreement among the parties, no evidence of an agreement to condition delivery of the funds to Holland upon the performance of some act or the happening of some event, and Brown, Koralchik was not acting as an agent for both parties.