We must consider “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, (1986). In determining whether there is a “genuine issue for trial,” we interpret the facts and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). III. A. The parties agree that the issue of ownership of the Share is governed by Kentucky law. United States v. 5854 N. Kenmore, 762 F.Supp. 204, 209 (N.D.Ill.1991) (citing United States v. Certain Real Prop., 910 F.2d 343 (6th Cir.1990)) (<HOLDING>). Under Kentucky law, ownership of property is
holding that with respect to civil forfeiture actions property issues concerning ownership are governed by the laws of the state in which the property is located holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property holding that ijnjuries caused by the condition of a public entitys property  clearly refers to ownership of a property interest which allows a public entity to control the property recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership