FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Nassau Academy of Law CLE Live ...

397 B.R. 642 Page 5397 B.R. 642(Cite as: 397 B.R. 642)erence into a Judgment of Divorce, which specificallyprovided as follows:Ordered and Adjudged that the settlement agreementdated September 19, 2003, a copy of which is on filewith the Court, shall be incorporated by reference intothis judgment, shall survive and not merge in thisjudgment, and the parties hereby are directed to complywith every legally enforceable term and provision ofsuch settlement agreement.The Judgment of Divorce was entered on December 10,2003.10. The state court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusionsof Law in the *647 Divorce Action. [FN2] TheFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, along withthe Judgment of Divorce, specifically refer to the SettlementAgreement and incorporate the specific termsof the Settlement Agreement into the Judgment of Divorce.FN2. Based upon the incomplete copy of theState Court's Findings and Conclusions the Defendantprovided the Court, this Court cannot ascertainthe entry date of the Findings and Conclusions.11. At the time the Judgment of Divorce was entered,and as of the time Debtor transferred his interest in theMarital Residence to Defendant, the Marital Residencehad a value of $532,000 and was subject to a mortgagelien in favor of Wells Fargo in the amount of $140,000.Thus, prior to the division of marital property, and absentother adjustments, the Debtor was entitled to 50%of the net equity value of $392,000, being an amountequal to $196,000.12. On March 15, 2004, Debtor filed a voluntary petitionfor relief under Chapter 7 of the United StatesBankruptcy Code. Thus, this bankruptcy case was filedninety-five (95) days after the Judgment of Divorce wasentered, and one hundred and twenty-five (125) daysafter Debtor transferred his interest in the Marital Residenceto Defendant.Legal AnalysisThe Standard for Summary JudgmentPursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 7056(c), summaryjudgment should be granted to the moving party ifthe Court determines that "the pleadings, depositions,answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, togetherwith affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuineissue as to any material fact and that the moving partyis entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp.v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d265 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)); Anderson v. LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247- 48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. ZenithRadio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).In considering cross-motions for summary judgment, theCourt must evaluate the merits of each motion independentlyof the other. Heublein, Inc. v. United States, 996F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir.1993); In re Rodriguez, 50 B.R.576 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1985) ("[C]ross-motions for summaryjudgment do not warrant the court in granting summaryjudgment unless one of the moving parties is entitledto judgment as a matter of law upon facts that are notgenuinely disputed.")A movant has the initial burden of establishing the absenceof any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A fact is "material" if it"might affect the Page 6 of 29 outcome of the suit underthe governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct.2505. An issue of fact is genuine "if the evidence is suchthat a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovingparty." Id. "When summary judgment is sought,the moving party bears an initial burden of demonstratingthat there is no genuine dispute of material fact to be decidedwith respect to any essential element of the claim inissue; the failure to meet this burden warrants denial ofthe motion." Smith v. Goord, No. 9:06-CV-401(FJS/DEP), 2008 WL 902184 *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar.31,2008) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 n. 4, 106 S.Ct.2505).If the movant meets his initial burden, the nonmovingparty "must do more than simply show that there is somemetaphysical *648 doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Rather, itmust present "significant probative evidence" that a genuineissue of fact exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106S.Ct. 2505 (quotation omitted). "There is no issue for trialunless there exists sufficient evidence in the record favoringthe party opposing summary judgment to support ajury verdict in that party's favor." Cadle Co. v. Newhouse,No. 01 Civ. 1777(DC), 2002 WL 1888716 *4(S.D.N.Y.2002) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106S.Ct. 2505); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct.2505 (finding that summary judgment is appropriate onlywhen "there can be but one reasonable conclusion as tothe verdict").© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.