Motion for Summary Judgment and Claims Objection
This is an adversary proceeding in which Kentor is objecting to the discharge of Dr.
Thompson pursuant to §727(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(5). Dr. Thompson filed her Motion for Summary
Judgment claiming that Kentor has no standing to file a discharge complaint as he is not and cannot
be a creditor of the bankruptcy estate and therefore that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Additionally, Dr. Thompson filed an Objection to the Claim of Kentor requesting disallowance of
such claim for the same reasons stated in her Motion for Summary Judgment. Dr. Thompson
requested that her Motion be incorporated for all purposes with respect to this claims’ objection.
Kentor argues that he has standing merely by filing a proof of claim and that, once he has
standing, he cannot lose it even if it is later determined that he is not a creditor. Further, he argues
he has standing because he is scheduled by Dr. Thompson on Schedule F as holding a claim, albeit
a disputed claim, for $1.00. And, finally he urges that he is a creditor because he is an assignee of
the Pool and Spa debt. Clearly, the acrimony between the parties continues post-divorce.
1. Whether Kentor is a “creditor” for purposes of bringing a discharge action pursuant to
§727 of the Bankruptcy Code?
2. Whether Kentor has an allowable claim in Dr. Thompson’s bankruptcy estate?
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to this proceeding by
Bankruptcy Rule 7056, a party will prevail on a motion for summary judgment when, “[t]he
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catratt, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct.