on, the estate did not benefit, and the defendants were liable to repay the $8,000. See id. at 354-55. 55 . Id. at 353. 56 . Id. (emphasis added). 57 . 06-12096-BKC-PGH, 2007 WL 1491188 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. May 17, 2007) aff'd, 518 F.3d 874 (11th Cir.2008). 58 . Id. at *1. 59 . Mat *4. 60 . Id. 61 . Id. at *4-6. 62 . In re Kingsley, 518 F.3d 874 (11th Cir.2008). 63 . See In re Clarkston, 387 B.R. 882, 891 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2008). 64 . Id. (emphasis added). The adversary proceeding in Sawran was filed against only the subsequent transferees. A separate judgment already was entered against the debtor's father in a prior case, where he unfortunately acted pro se. Regrettably, he did not argue the “single satisfaction” defense to recovera-bility in the , 112 S.Ct. 1386, 1391, 118 L.Ed.2d 39 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 81 . See Kingsley, 518 F.3d at 877. 82 .
holding that drawer of check is liable only for the amount originally stated by drawer on check even though the drawers negligence facilitated the wrongful alteration of the amount on the check and the payment of a larger amount to the payee holding that upon payment by check a transfer does not occur until the bank honors the check reasoning that until the moment of honor the debtor retains full control over disposition of the account and the account remains subject to a variety of actions by third parties holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties