PHEAA/ ECMC, in its capacity as third-party guarantor, has no interest under the Note between Alfes and SunTrust, ie., PHEAA did not have, and could not assign to ECMC, the right to defend the Note. Rather, Alfes contends, ECMC may only assert claims for reimbursement, restitution, and subrogation, which do not arise under the Note. Alfes’s argument fails to recognize the independent rights a guarantor may assert under bankruptcy law. It is well-settled that when a debtor successfully obtains a discharge through bankruptcy, the guarantor holds a “claim against the debtor, and as such, [is considered] a creditor” for the purposes of bankruptcy proceedings. United States v. Erkard, 200 B.R. 152, 154 (N.D.Ohio 1996). See also In re H & S Tramp. Co., 939 F.2d 355, 359 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); 5-547 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 547.03 (“The
holding that as a general rule  affirmative action by the creditor must be taken to make it known to the debtor that the creditor has exercised his option to accelerate holding that the guarantor of debtors loan is a creditor by virtue of his right to reimbursement from debtor holding that a creditor could not set off a debt owed on a loan that he took out a month before the bankruptcy against the value he paid for investment certificates from the debtorbank a year earlier in order to improve his position as a creditor based on the timing of the loan holding that a creditor violated  362a by making repayment or reaffirmation of an unsecured loan a condition for permitting the debtor to reaffirm a secured loan but offering no rationale to support the conclusion holding that a debtors  522d1 exemption was invalid when the debtor exempted proceeds from the prepetition sale of the debtors marital home which were paid to a judgment creditor with an attachment on the debtors interest in the home