collectible is irrelevant to our inquiry. Kentor has standing to pursue this discharge action.
Objection to Claim
Defendant urges that all Kentor’s claims listed in his Exhibit to his proof of claim (except
the Meredith Loan) are disallowable under §502(e)(1)(A) which provides that: “the court shall
disallow any claim for reimbursement or contribution of an entity that is liable with the debtor . . to
the extent that–(A) such creditor’s claim against the estate is disallowed..” 11 U.S.C.
§502(e)(1)(A)(West 2006). The Divorce Decree determined certain of these claims to be separate
claims against Kentor and therefore they are not allowable in this case. None were found to be the
debts of Dr. Thompson. Further, even if the Divorce Decree had not resolved them, the bar date for
filing proofs of claim was August 18, 2005. None of the creditors listed on Kentor’s Exhibit to his
proof of claim filed a proof of claim, except the Merediths. This Court agrees with Dr. Thompson,
that to the extent Kentor could rely on any alleged right of indemnity or contribution (and he no
longer can) related to any of these creditors’ claims (other than the Merediths), Kentor does not have
an allowable claim under §502(e)(1)(A) because none of them filed claims. Further, he has not paid
As to any right to contribution or reimbursement arising out of the Meredith Loan,
§502(e)(1)(B) provides that the court shall disallow any claim for reimbursement or contribution of
a co-debtor if: “such claim for reimbursement or contribution is contingent as of the time of
allowance or disallowance of such claim for reimbursement or contribution.” 11 U.S.C.
§502(e)(1)(B) (West 2006).
The Merediths timely filed a proof of claim in this case and it is undisputed. The Meredith
Loan matured December 31, 2003, and Kentor has admitted that the Merediths have made no effort
to collect from him; neither has he paid “one red cent” on the Meredith Loan. Kentor’s claim, if any,