resources which would otherwise have been used to satisfy the claims of creditors.” In re Marshall, 550 F.3d at 1256. The Sixth Circuit reached an identical conclusion in a decision where a trustee sought to avoid a balance transfer from one credit card company to another as preferential under § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Dilworth, 560 F.3d 562 (6th Cir.2009). “Because the funds transferred by Citi to MBNA at Dilworth’s direction were not earmarked funds and because their transfer diminished the bankruptcy estate, those funds were property in which Dil-worth had an interest. The [Bankruptcy [C]ourt [in Dilworth] did not err in holding that the transfer was preferential and therefore [avoidable by the Trustee.” Id. at 565; see also In re Wells, 382 B.R. 355 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). BOA has failed to direct this Court to one
holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income holding that the use of convenience checks drawn on a credit card account to pay a debt owed on another credit card was a preferential transfer subject to avoidance because the new lender did not direct or require the loaned funds to be paid to mbna and the debtor could have used the borrowed funds to purchase assets instead of paying the mbna debt holding that at a minimum a credit check must be preformed before a credit card is issued in order to have any resulting debt declared nondischargeable holding that statute which prohibited possession of machines designed to produce credit cards did not have a rational relationship to goal of preventing credit card fraud because the statute did not require intent to put the equipment to an unlawful use holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable