Neil C. Gordon, William D. Matthews, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff., Colleen Patricia Brannon, Newborn, GA, pro se., Benjamin T. Polk, Conyers, GA, pro se., Robert J. Fehse, Evans Petree PC, Memphis, TN, for Defendants., Wendy L. Hagenau, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"). Plaintiff seeks to avoid and recover a transfer of property set out in a divorce decree. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (K), and (O)., Debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on March 15, 2016. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 7, 2016 and an Amended Complaint on June 29, 2017. Plaintiff alleges any interest Polk acquired in the Property under the Divorce Decree is subject to avoidance. Plaintiff seeks to avoid the Transfer pursuant to sections 544(a)(3) and 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code ; to find Polk liable for the Transfer pursuant to section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code ; to preserve the Transfer for the benefit of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551 ; authorization to sell the Property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(h) ; and an order directing Polk to turn over the Property to Plaintiff. Polk answered the Complaint and the Amended Complaint asserting he is the sole owner of the Property pursuant to the Divorce Decree and Plaintiff has no interest in the Property., Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law". Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056(c). "The substantive law [applicable to the case] will identify which facts are material." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving there are no disputes as to any material facts. Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993). A factual dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505., Once this burden is met, the nonmoving party cannot merely rely on allegations or denials in its own pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Rather, the nonmoving party must present specific facts to demonstrate there is a genuine dispute over material facts. Hairston, 9 F.3d at 918. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all reasonable doubts and inferences should be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.