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.
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).