The Court is unconvinced. The cases only stand for the basic premise that a creditor may favor one creditor over another as long as the transfer is not fraudulent. See Samuel v. Kittenger, 6 Wash. 261, 268-69, 33 P. 509 (1893) (holding that transfers from a debtor to various other creditors for repayment of preexisting debts, "where there is no such trust agreed upon or understood between the parties" were valid even though the "effect may be to preclude the creditors from subjecting the property to the payment of their claims against the common debtor"); Tomlinson v. Burgess, 185 Wash. 33, 52 P.2d 1259 (1935) (holding that transfers from a debtor to creditors who were not trustees of a trust for the which the debtor was a beneficiary were valid and not fraudulent); Van Stewart v. Townsend, 176 Wash. 311, 28 P.2d 999 (1934) (holding that transfer from parents to a trust for the children was not void when it was "created in good faith when the grantors were fully solvent"). None of these cases cited by Defendants endorse the novel position advanced by Defendants—that a debtor can protect its assets from seizure by taking out loans from a spendthrift trust and then transferring other assets back into the trust.