X hits on this document

PDF document

04-16614-frm_Margaret%20M%20Thompson_2006-09-12%2010;05;01.pdf - page 8 / 14

32 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 14

Haley v. Pope, 206 F. 266 (9th Cir. 1913); see also In re Barrager, 191 F. 247 (D.C. Iowa 1911) and

F.R.B.P 3003(b)(1). However, when one reads F.R.B.P. 3003(b)(1) in its entirety, it provides that

there is no prima facie validity of a claim if the creditors are scheduled as holders of disputed,

contingent or unliquidated claims as is the case here. F.R.B.P. 3003(b)(West 2006). Further, a party

whose claim has been conclusively disproved cannot object to a debtor’s discharge. Valshing at 567

( Although [creditor] was correctly listed as a contingent creditor in Valshing’s bankruptcy petition,

once the New Jersey Surrogate Court dismissed her claim, Stanley lost creditor status. Not being

a creditor, Stanley did not have the right under §727(c)(1) to oppose Vahlsing’s discharge). Only

those creditors who have claims that will be affected by the discharge can file objections. In re

Chandler, 138 F. 637 (7th Cir. 1905). A discharge would affect the interests of creditors with

disputed claims since they have a chance of prevailing on their claims. However, when a creditor’s

claim has been finally adjudicated and dismissed, a discharge cannot affect its interest. Valshing at

567.

Here, the state court has determined that there was no community property and no

community debt created during Dr. Thompson and Kentor’s marriage. The state court also ordered

Kentor to pay certain debts he listed in his proof of claim along with his attorney fees and other

divorce fees. The Divorce Decree did not order Dr. Thompson to pay any debts listed in Kentor’s

proof of claim (but see discussion of Meredith Loan below). These claims were adjudicated in state

court and resolved by the Divorce Decree. The Decree determined that none of the debts in Kentor’s

proof of claim were contingent marital debts of the other (except the Meredith Loan discussed

below) and as such, he has no standing to pursue a §727 action under those claims.

Kentor also contends he is a legitimate creditor because he purchased and was assigned the

Pool & Spa claim against Dr. Thompson. He contends that he has a right to object to Dr.

8

Document info
Document views32
Page views32
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 20:21:13 UTC 2016
Pages14
Paragraphs325
Words4370

Comments