  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Straight), 207 B.R. 217 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1997); Marino v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (In re Marino), 205
B.R. 897 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997); Sysco Foods Co. v. Eldercare Housing Found., Inc. (In re Eldercare Housing Found., Inc.), 205 B.R. 210 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996); In re Prof'l Coatings (N.A.) Inc., 210 B.R. 66 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1997); Weaver v. Aquila Energy Marktg. Corp., 196 B.R. 945 (S.D. Tex. 1996); Richardson v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Churchill Nut Co.), 251 B.R. 143 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2000).
More recent cases have focused on the date on which the funds due under the subject garnishment were earned. Those cases have restored section 547(e)(3) to a place of importance in preference cases in which a garnishment is under the microscope. In Wade v. Midwest Acceptance Crop. (In re Wade), 219 B.R. 815
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998), the Court combines a Ron Pair plain language analysis with a "Federal Law beats State Law in the preference construct" and then supports all of that with the Epstein, Nickles White analysis to reach this conclusion. Likewise, in In re Wilkinson, 196 B.R. 311 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1996), the Court differentiated between the effect of the attachment of the garnishment and the effect of the payment of the wages to the garnishor. The court made clear that it would have found a preference had the wages been earned during the preference period. Accord /Baker v. Kay Enters. (In re Baker), 246 B.R. 379 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2000.)
The trend begun by Wade, supported by Epstein, Nickles and White, and directly opposed by the opinions in at least two circuits, e.g., Riddervold v. Saratoga Hosp. (In re Riddervold, 647 F.2d 342 (2d Cir. 1981) and In re Coppie, 728 F.2d 951 (7th Cir. 1984), has intensified. One Court of Appeals, Morehead v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (In re Morehead), 249 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2001); the Eighth Circuit BAP, James
v. Planters Bank (In re James), 257 B.R. 673 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001); and several bankruptcy court decisions, Chavez v. Mrcury Fin. (In re Chavez), 257 B.R. 341 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2001); Jackson v. K.A.S. Enters. Inc. (In re Jackson), 260 B.R. 473 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2001); and In re White, 258 B.R. 129 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2001) have recently rejected Ridervold and Coppie and held that the dating of garnishment claims is determined by the time the wages are earned (when the debtor has a right in the property) no
