JOSEPH McKINLEY JR., District Judge
This matter is once again before the Court on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The case has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. For the reasons discussed below, the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed.
Upon initial remand, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the Bankruptcy Court to conduct fact finding on whether the subject transaction resulted in a diminution of the bankruptcy estate and to reconsider the applicability of the earmarking doctrine in light of such findings. Upon remand, the parties stipulated that there was no diminution of the estate as a result of the transaction. Notwithstanding, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the earmarking doctrine was not applicable.
The Court recognizes Appellant's very strong and potentially valid argument that the panel majority already concluded that the earmarking doctrine would apply under these odd facts if there was no diminution of the estate. Appellant insists that once it was stipulated that no diminution had occurred, the Bankruptcy Court was bound to apply the earmarking doctrine.
There is a legitimate question, however, whether the panel decided the earmarking doctrine would apply if there was no diminution. For instance, the opinion noted that diminution of value was "not necessarily dispositive" and instructed the bankruptcy court to "reconsider the applicability of the earmarking doctrine in light of such findings." The Bankruptcy Court did so and found the earmarking doctrine not applicable under the facts of this case, an opinion with which this Court agrees. Hopefully, this matter will reach the same panel on appeal and it can determine if the matter was decided consistent with its instructions.
Because the Court finds the Bankruptcy Court's opinion to be a well-reasoned and sound one, it is hereby affirmed.