necessary at this point for the Court to decide whether William was actually just a codebtor on the loan, with the same non-contingent liability that Benjamin had, as the Trustee contends. 18 . Docket # 27, Aff. of Carmen Leonard ¶ 23. 19 . Id. at ¶ 22, 23, 28-30; Docket # 27, Benjamin Leonard Aff., ¶¶ 22-23, 25-26. 20 . Because the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the existence of an express oral trust, it is not necessary, at this time, to discuss the Trustee's arguments regarding tracing. (The Trustee argues that Marquette has the burden, but has not met its burden, to trace the alleged trust funds under the “lowest intermediate balance rule.” See Meoli v. Kendall Electric, Inc. (In re R.W. Leet Electric, Inc.), 372 B.R. 846, 853-57 (6th Cir. BAP 2007)(<HOLDING>).) 21 . Docket # 37, Def.’s Br. at 5. 22 . That
holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof holding that the sixth circuit erred by following its own precedent rather than that of the supreme court in determining what is clearly established federal law holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally holding that under sixth circuit precedent express trust funds must be traced the burden to do so is on defendant and tracing involves application of the lowest intermediate balance rule 