that the funds were part of the Debtor’s estate. The Payment Agreement indicates that the funds the Debtor received were to be passed on to pay its clients’ carriers. The Debtor here is.in essentially the same position as a bailee: Contech (the bailor) directed the Debtor (the bailee) to take possession of Contech’s money and subsequently disburse it to Contech’s creditors. See Jones v. Hanna, 814 S.W.2d 287, 288 (Ky.Ct.App.1991) (“A ‘bailment’ ... imports the delivery of personal property by one person to another in trust for a specific purpose, with a contract, express or implied, that the trust shall be faithfully executed, and the property returned or duly accounted for when the special purpose is accomplished .... ”); Hargis v. Spencer, 254 Ky. 297, 71 S.W.2d 666, 667 (1934)(<HOLDING>). As a bailee, the Debtor lacked any property
recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case recognizing that a code of silence can be perpetuated only if there is retaliation for violations of it recognizing that there can be bailment of money recognizing there can be concurrent proximate causes of accident holding that there can be only one final appealable order