express trust argument does not apply to this transfer. The Trustee has demonstrated, beyond any genuine dispute, all of the necessary elements for avoidance of the first transfer, under his constructive fraudulent transfer theories. V. Conclusion For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court will enter an order (1) granting the Trustee’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the first transfer (the $400.00 transfer on May 8, 2008), and otherwise denying the motion; and (2) granting Marquette’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the fourth transfer (the $43.00 post-petition transfer on November 20, 2008), and otherwise denying the motion. 1 . Docket #19. 2 . Id. at 2 ¶ 8. 3 . Cf. Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393, 394-95, 112 S.Ct. 1386, 118 L.Ed.2d 39 (1992)(<HOLDING>). 4 . These dates are established by the
holding that for purposes of avoiding a transfer as a preference under 11 usc  547 a transfer made by check should be deemed to occur  on the date the drawee bank honors it holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed holding that chapter 13 debtor lacked standing under 11 usc  548 but finding limited authority for the debtor to avoid a transfer under 11 usc  522h holding authority to transfer every asset of failed bank includes authority to transfer choses in action not assignable under state law