Florida, where a recipient of money by mistake cannot show legal or equitable ground for retaining the money, it can be recovered. Ferguson v. Cotler, 382 So.2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). To permit Barry to retain the distributions would result in a windfall to him and a double obligation for the Fund. Barry argues that the theory of unjust enrichment is not available to a plaintiff who made a mistake of law. He argues that the parties had correct knowledge of the facts, but arrived at an incorrect conclusion of law that the distributions were not property of the estate. Although governed by a rule of law, 11 U.S.C. § 541, the determination of whether a particular asset is “property of the estate” involves a question of fact. See In re Thomas, 883 F.2d 991, 995-7 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The mutual mistake of Barry and the Fund that
holding clearly erroneous bankruptcy courts conclusion that mobile home was property of the estate holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion holding that the trial courts conclusion regarding an easement of necessity was clearly erroneous holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code