Razzaboni v. Schifano ( 2004 )

interest in Northlantic remains “unsupported speculation,” which is
insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Medina-
Munoz, 896 F.2d at 8.
With regard to the Stoneham property, the Razzabonis
argue that there are “badges” of ownership indicating that the
Debtor actually maintained an ownership interest in it. For
example, the Debtor and his family resided in the property, paid
the mortgage on the property, filed property damage insurance
claims on the property, and claimed a homestead exemption for the
property in the bankruptcy filings. But, there is no evidence
showing that any transfers or concealment occurred in the year
prior to the bankruptcy filing. The Stoneham property was
purchased in 1987, and the Debtor began living in the property at
that time. Since the property was purchased, it was technically
owned by Massbay, then transferred to Rosario, and then transferred
to Norma at Rosario’s death. Although the Debtor was a signatory
on the original mortgage, he never retained any title of record to
the property. Even if there were a plausible argument that some
form of economic interest in the property should be attributed to
the Debtor, that interest did not accrue in the year preceding the
bankruptcy filing. Thus, there are no facts alleged that could
reasonably prove that the Debtor concealed his interest in the
Stoneham property during the year prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Summary judgment, therefore, is appropriate on this claim.
Finally, as to the gifts and loans, the Debtor argues
-12-