he was — I—I believe that’s where the funds were taken from, and I believe that he does work on that partnership, as many — as well as many other ones as part of defense. Transcript 8/28/2012,105:20-24. The Debtor further admitted that he had no idea how Curtis Investors accounted for the Post-Petition Retainer. Transcript 8/28/2012, 106:2-8. The Post-Petition Retainer was paid from a distribution from Curtis Investors to the Debtor. The fact it was received by the Winterhalter Firm and not the Debtor did not exclude it from the scope of the Debtor’s estate. In re Valladares, 415 B.R. 617, 625 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2009) (finding that corporate distributions paid to law firm were property of debtor’s estate); In re W.T. Mayfield Sons Trucking Co., Inc., 225 B.R. 818, 827 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1998) (<HOLDING>). As estate property, the Post-Petition
holding secured creditors refusal to turn over property of debtors estate to debtor upon demand constituted an exercise of control over such property in violation of automatic stay holding that the debtors interest in a broadcasting license constitutes property of the estate holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments holding that payments to debtors counsel from a whollyowned subsidiary constituted property of the estate