proceeding against him. 65 . 221 B.R. 49 (Bankr.D.Conn.1998). 66 . Id. at 51. 67 . Bassett, 221 B.R. at 55. 68 . Id. 69 . 11 U.S.C. § 550(a). 70 . Id. at 1322. 71 . Id. 72 .The “mere conduit” exception is “an equitable exception to the literal statutory language of ‘initial transferee,' ... for initial recipients who are ‘mere conduits’ with no control over the fraudulently-transferred funds.” Harwell, 628 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir.2010). Because SunTrust was the end recipient of the Transfers, it certainly was not a mere conduit. 73 . 446 B.R. 564 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2011). 74 . ATM Financial, 446 B.R. at 566. 75 . Id. 76 . Id. 77 . Id. at 568-71. 78 . Id. at 570-71. 79 . 11 U.S.C. § 101(54); Fla. Stat. § 726.102(12). 80 . See In re Wayne, 237 B.R. 506, 508-09 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). See also Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393,
holding that because debtor retained control of property a transfer had not yet occurred recognizing potential for fraudulent transfer in foreclosure context if debtor enjoyed significant equity in property but received little or no value from the transfer holding that even when the event that would cause the damage had not yet occurred the claims in the case were still ripe for review holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default