funds in the reserve account held for the supersedeas judgment creditors under the theory of subrogation. The parties have directed the Court’s attention to a number of methods of analysis; nonetheless, there are three observational viewpoints: a. Under § 502(e)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (contribution); b. Under § 509 of the Bankruptcy Code (subrogation); and c. Under state law within the context of either contribution or equitable subrogation. This Court has considered all arguments and evidence consistent with a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. In considering whether summary judgment is warranted, this Court adheres to the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)(<HOLDING>); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-35, 106
holding that the inquiry involved in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment  necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding that where defendants assertion depends on proof to be offered at trial summary judgment is inappropriate holding the standard of proof in summary judgment rulings is the same as it would be at trial holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial