X hits on this document

PDF document

04-16614-frm_Margaret%20M%20Thompson_2006-09-12%2010;05;01.pdf - page 5 / 14

33 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

5 / 14

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.

Issues Presented

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?

Legal Argument

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.

5

Document info
Document views33
Page views33
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 03:53:30 UTC 2016
Pages14
Paragraphs325
Words4370

Comments