X hits on this document

PDF document

04-16614-frm_Margaret%20M%20Thompson_2006-09-12%2010;05;01.pdf - page 9 / 14





9 / 14

Thompson’s discharge. However, it is clear that such purchase was for an improper purpose.

Harassment borne out of marital acrimony and divorce is not a proper purpose. “The right to object

to a debtor’s discharge is not a marketable commodity which may be purchased by one party from

another in order to inflict further punishment and discomfort upon the debtor.” Young v. Beugen (In

re Beugen), 99 B.R.961 at 965 (BAP 9th Cir. 1989).

Kentor filed this adversary proceeding in

March of 2005. He did not purchase the Pool & Spa claim of $598.00 until November 21, 2005

eight (8) months after the adversary filing and nineteen (19) days after Dr. Thompson filed her

Motion for Summary Judgment objecting to his standing. Pool & Spa Services did not file a proof

of claim in this bankruptcy proceeding and, therefore, Kentor cannot share in any distributions that

may be available. It is obvious that Kentor purchased the claim for the sole purpose of attempting

to validate his standing in order to pursue this action and presumably extract his “pound of flesh”

for whatever injuries, real or imagined, he feels were inflicted upon him during his marriage to Dr.

Thompson. The Court will not allow Kentor to manipulate the court system this way.

Kentor’s stronger standing argument is the fact that he has co-signer status on the Meredith

Loan. The Divorce Decree did not alter or affect either parties’ liability under the note. The

uncontested summary judgment evidence establishes that Kentor and Dr. Thompson are jointly and

severally liable on the Meredith Loan. Mr. Meredith is the holder of an allowed unsecured claim,

and Dr. Thompson has acknowledged that debt in her schedules. Because Kentor had a contingent

right of contribution against Dr. Thompson at the time of filing, those rights are sufficient to

establish his “claim”under the Bankruptcy Code and sufficient to provide “standing” for his

challenge to Dr. Thompson’s discharge under §727.

Section 727(c)(1) provides that “the trustee, a creditor, or the United States Trustee may

object to the granting of a discharge” under Section 727(a). 11 U.S.C. §727(c)(1)(West 2006). Any


Document info
Document views49
Page views49
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 05:12:57 UTC 2017