In re Coutinho v. Jarrett

Jul 27, 2026
26-02020

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 7)

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff‘s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion“) (Doc. 7), filed by Plaintiff James A. Coutinho, the chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee“) of the bankruptcy estate of Charles A. Taylor (the “Debtor“). Through the Motion and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (made applicable here by Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), the Trustee seeks an order granting summary judgment against Defendant Tommy Jarrett (the “Defendant“), determining that the Defendant had no ownership interest, security interest, lien, or other enforceable interest in the 2022 Polaris Sportsman ATV, VIN No. 4XASXZ953NB208013 (the “ATV“) and therefore has no corresponding interest in $6,768.75 that the Trustee holds from the sale of the ATV (the “Sale Proceeds“).

The Motion was served on the Defendant. The time period for a response to the Motion to be filed has lapsed and no response to the Motion has been filed.

The Motion is supported by the Affidavit of James A. Coutinho in Support of Plaintiff‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto (the “Coutinho Affidavit“), filed as Exhibit A to the Motion, which establish the material facts through competent evidence. Although the Motion is unopposed, the Court has not treated it as conceded and has independently reviewed the Coutinho Affidavit, the Complaint (Doc. 1), and the entire record in this Adversary Proceeding. See Hoehn v. United States Dept. of Educ. (In re Hoehn), 672 B.R. 411, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2025) (collecting cases regarding the standard of review of unopposed motion for summary judgment). Based on that record, and proper service of the Motion having been completed, the Court finds that the Trustee has carried his burden under Rule 56 of demonstrating the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact, and his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The Motion is therefore well taken on the merits and is GRANTED.

Based on the Coutinho Affidavit and the record before it, the Court finds that the Trustee has established that there is no genuine dispute as to the following material facts:1

  1. This Adversary Proceeding was initiated on March 22, 2026. Through filing the Complaint, the Trustee sought a determination that the Defendant is not entitled to any portion of Sale Proceeds from the sale of the ATV.
  2. On October 28, 2025, in the underlying bankruptcy case, the Court entered the Order Granting Motion (1) to Sell 2022 Polaris Sportsman ATV Free and Clear of Claim of Tommy Jarrett Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(4); and (2) for Authorization to Interact with Title Clerk to Transfer ATV Title Upon Sale (Bankruptcy Case Doc. 35) (the “Sale Order“). Pursuant to the Sale Order, the Trustee sold the ATV and holds the Sale Proceeds. The Sale Order provided that any claim of the Defendant would attach to the Sale Proceeds pending further order of the Court.
  3. On November 18, 2022, a State of Ohio Certificate of Title for the ATV was issued identifying the Debtor as the sole “Owner” and the Defendant as the “Previous Owner.” The Certificate of Title reflects a transfer price of $0.00 and contains no lien notation in favor of the Defendant.
  4. The Defendant has not produced any written security agreement granting him a security interest in the ATV. In a written response to the Trustee, the Defendant acknowledged that any arrangement regarding the ATV was a “verbal agreement” that “was not documented.”
  5. The Defendant filed a tardy proof of claim in the Debtor‘s bankruptcy case (Claim No. 10) asserting that he and his wife paid for the ATV and that it should be returned to them. The Defendant has not established any ownership interest, perfected security interest, lien, or other enforceable interest in the ATV.
  6. There is no genuine dispute of material fact. The undisputed evidence establishes that the Defendant transferred title of the ATV to the Debtor, retained no ownership interest on the Certificate of Title, and never obtained a written security agreement or lien notation. As a matter of law under Ohio certificate of title law and the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Ohio, the Defendant had no ownership interest, security interest, lien, or other enforceable interest in the ATV. Moreover, to the extent the Defendant held any unperfected interest in the ATV, that interest would be voidable by the Trustee, who under 11 U.S.C. § 544 holds the rights and powers of a hypothetical judicial lien creditor as of the petition date.
  7. Because the Defendant had no enforceable interest in the ATV, the Defendant has no corresponding interest in the Sale Proceeds.

Based upon the foregoing undisputed material facts, the Trustee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

  1. The Motion is granted.
  2. Summary judgment is entered in favor of the Trustee and against the Defendant.
  3. The Defendant had no ownership interest, security interest, lien, or other enforceable interest in the ATV.
  4. The Defendant has no corresponding interest in the Sale Proceeds.
  5. The Sale Proceeds shall be held by the Trustee for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, free and clear of any interest, lien, or claim of the Defendant in or to the ATV or the Sale Proceeds.
  6. For the avoidance of doubt, this Order adjudicates only the Defendant‘s asserted interest in the ATV and the Sale Proceeds. Nothing in this Order affects the validity or allowance of Claim No. 10, the proof of claim filed by the Defendant in the underlying bankruptcy case, which shall remain subject to allowance and distribution as a general unsecured claim in accordance with the priorities of the Bankruptcy Code, including 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(3).
  7. The Trustee is directed to submit a separate final judgment entry pursuant to Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (made applicable here by Rule 7058 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), and LBR 9072-1.

SO ORDERED.

Mina Nami Khorrami

United States Bankruptcy Judge

SUBMITTED BY:

/s/ James A. Coutinho
James A. Coutinho (0082430)
Allen Stovall Neuman & Ashton LLP
10 W. Broad St., Ste. 2400
Columbus, OH 43215
T: (614) 221-8500 F: (614) 221-5988
coutinho@asnalaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff/Chapter 7 Trustee

Copies to:

Via ECF:

James A. Coutinho, Esq.

Via Regular Mail:

Tommy Jarrett
5534 State Route 47 East
Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311

Notes

1
On summary judgment, the Court does not make findings of fact. 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435-36 (6th Cir. 1987). Rather, its task is to determine whether there is any genuine dispute as to a material fact. Bultema v. United States, 359 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004).