People v. Kaemingk

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Fisher

    Case No. 97-50092-JRG Chapter 7, Adversary No. 97-5142 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 1999)

    See Stokes, 142 B.R. at 910 n. 3. This interpretation is similar to that of courts in other states with similar rules. See, e.g. Bennett v. Hollingsworth (In re Hollingsworth) , 224 B.R. 822 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1998); Ball v. McDowell (In re McDowell) , 162 B.R. 136 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1993);Ducey v. Doherty (In re Ducey) , 160 B.R. 465 (Bankr.D.N.H. 1993); People v. Kaemingk, 770 P.2d 1247 (Colo. 1989). A trustee-beneficiary relationship existed between Defendant and Plaintiff at the time Defendant received the settlement funds.

  2. In re Hamilton

    147 B.R. 779 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Holding a duty of care, without more, insufficient to satisfy the fiduciary relationship element of Section 523

    See, also, People v. Watson, 833 P.2d 50, 52 (Colo. 1992) (attorney acted in a fiduciary capacity when funds were entrusted to him); People v. Kaemingk, 770 P.2d 1247, 1249 (Colo. 1989) (breach of fiduciary duty when entrusted funds are converted to personal use); People v. Harthun, 197 Colo. 1, 3, 593 P.2d 324, 325 (1979) (same); People v. Cole, 760 P.2d 1108, 1110 (Colo. 1988) (attorneys have the fiduciary duty to properly invest entrusted funds).