VOTOLATO, Judge
Before the Court are Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Richardson"), and the Intervenor/ Defendant, Textron Financial Corporation ("Textron"). The parties have submitted a Joint-Pretrial Order, Docket No. 28, and memoranda in support of their positions.
In considering requests for summary judgment, courts in this Circuit use the following guidelines:
[S]ummary judgment should be bestowed only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant has successfully demonstrated an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As to issues on which the movant, at trial, would be obligated to carry the burden of proof, he initially must proffer materials of evidentiary or quasi-evidentiary quality . . . that support his position. . . . When the summary judgment record is complete, all reasonable inferences from the facts must be drawn in the manner most favorable to the nonmovant. . . . This means, of course, that summary judgment is inappropriate if inferences are necessary for the judgment and those inferences are not mandated by the record.
Desmond v. Varrasso (In re Varrasso), 37 F.3d 760, 763 (1st Cir. 1994) (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). In this case there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the matter is ripe for summary judgment. The sole issue is whether Textron's security interest in general intangibles extends to the Trustee's cause of action under
11 U.S.C. § 548, entitling Textron to the proceeds from the sale of the Ohio real estate.
For the reasons argued by the Trustee in his Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, Docket No. 32, and his Memorandum in Opposition to Textron's request for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 37, which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, the Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Textron's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Textron's security interest does not attach to the proceeds of the Ohio real estate and said proceeds should be returned to the Anton Noll bankruptcy estate for distribution in accordance with the provision of Chapter 7. Textron's arguments regarding Count II of the Trustee's Complaint are rejected because those allegations concerning breach of fiduciary duty pertain to the Defendant Michael Sparfven only, and the Trustee stated in oral argument that he was not pursuing that claim, in light of Mr. Sparfven's personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Enter judgment consistent with this Order.