In a lengthy decision addressing a challenge to its order reopening the debtor’s chapter 13 case, a Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina found that the debtor had no duty under the Bankruptcy Code or Rules to disclose a lawsuit that accrued and was filed post-confirmation. In the face of a judicial estoppel defense raised by the Defendants in the debtor’s state personal injury lawsuit, the court stated, “[w]ithout such a duty or knowledge that one existed, Debtor cannot be found to have acted intentionally to mislead this Court.” In re Boyd, No. 13-2924 (Bankr. S.C. July 17, 2020). Read More
Tag Archive: judicial estoppel
-
Great Decision on Judicial Estoppel
Posted by NCBRC - July 30th, 2020
-
Fifth Circuit Approves Alternative to Judicial Estoppel Reaching Same Result
Posted by NCBRC - February 4th, 2020
Finding its decision “odd” and “not the route we would have taken,” the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order declining to apply judicial estoppel to put an end to the debtor’s personal injury litigation against Wal-Mart, but ordering the debtor to turn over any recovery he made through the lawsuit for distribution to creditors. Wal-Mart Stores v. Parker, No. 18-30378 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2020) (unpublished).
While Mr. Parker’s chapter 13 case was pending, he suffered a work-related injury during a delivery to Wal-Mart. He filed a civil lawsuit in state court against the company. He failed to notify the bankruptcy trustee or court of the lawsuit. He completed his plan, received discharge, and his case was closed. Wal-Mart moved to reopen to seek dismissal of Mr. Parker’s personal injury case on the basis of judicial estoppel. The bankruptcy court found that the elements of judicial estoppel were met, but declined to apply the doctrine. Instead, the court ordered Mr. Parker to turn over any proceeds from the lawsuit to the bankruptcy trustee for distribution to creditors. Wal-Mart sought and obtained leave to appeal directly to the Fifth Circuit. Read More
-
Fifth Circuit Bludgeons Debtors with Judicial Estoppel Ruling
Posted by NCBRC - January 10th, 2019
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s case under the False Claims Act where he had failed to disclose the cause of action in his pending chapter 13 case. Bias v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, No. 17-30982 (5th Cir. March 22, 2019) (withdrawing prior opinion) (unpublished, per curiam opinion).
After his chapter 13 case was confirmed in bankruptcy court, debtor, Ronald Bias, learned that his retirement from the Marine Corps had mistakenly been permitted two years earlier than it should have been. The Marine Corps offered him the option of continuing his teaching position in the Junior Reserve Officer’s Training Corp (JROTC), Tangipahoa Parish School District, as a way of fulfilling his pre-retirement obligations. While teaching, Mr. Bias learned of a fellow marine and teacher at the school whom he believed was submitting false reimbursement requests to the Marine Corps. After he reported his suspicions, Mr. Bias was offered the opportunity to retire or be transferred to a new school district. Read More
-
Eleventh Circuit Applies New Judicial Estoppel Analysis
Posted by NCBRC - October 18th, 2018
When addressing judicial estoppel, courts may no longer apply a presumption of motive to conceal, but must look at the facts and circumstances behind a bankruptcy debtor’s failure to disclose his civil action in the bankruptcy proceeding. Silva v. Pro Transport Inc., No. 17-12744 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018).
After Julio Antonio Silva’s chapter 13 bankruptcy plan was confirmed, he filed an FLSA claim in district court against his employers for failure to pay overtime. He did not tell his civil counsel about his bankruptcy nor did he immediately inform the bankruptcy court of the district court case. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel, and awarded over $50,000 to the employer in sanctions and attorney fees. Mr. Silva appealed the sanctions award. Read More
-
Debtors’ Challenge to Private Student Loan Survives Dismissal Motion
Posted by NCBRC - September 26th, 2018
A private loan in excess of the cost of attendance is not subject to exception from discharge under section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii). McDaniel v. Navient Solutions, No. 09-37450, Adv. Proc. No. 17-1274 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 2018).
In their confirmed chapter 13 plan, Byron and Laura McDaniel treated their student loans, including those held by Navient Solutions, as unsecured Class Four claims to be deferred until after discharge. Upon completion of their plan, the McDaniels obtained discharge, but later moved to reopen. They filed an adversary proceeding seeking a declaration that a particular private loan held by Navient was not excepted from discharge. They also sought a finding that Navient violated the discharge injunction by collecting on that private loan post-discharge. Navient moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding. Read More
-
No Recovery for Foreclosure Sale of Non-Disclosed Property
Posted by NCBRC - September 20th, 2018
The chapter 13 debtor was judicially estopped from challenging the foreclosure sale of his property as a violation of the automatic stay because he failed to disclose his ownership interest in the property. Fornesa v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co., No. 17-20324 (5th Cir. July 27, 2018). Read More
-
Circuit Rejects Mechanical Application of Judicial Estoppel
Posted by NCBRC - April 4th, 2018
The district court abused its discretion when it mechanically applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit after he and his wife successfully completed their 100% plan. Clark v. Advanced Composites Grp., No. 17-1727 (2d Cir. March 30, 2018).
Michele and John Clark had one more payment due on their five-year chapter 13 plan when Mr. Clark was diagnosed with mesothelioma which he believed to have been caused by exposure to asbestos through his service with the United States Air Force and in his subsequent private sector work. The Clarks notified their bankruptcy counsel of his diagnosis and their intention to commence litigation, but their counsel did not notify the bankruptcy court. The Clarks successfully completed their plan payments. One year later, and one week prior to formal discharge and closure of their bankruptcy, Mr. Clark filed a personal injury complaint against Boeing and numerous other corporations. The case was removed to district court. Boeing then moved to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds of judicial estoppel. Finding that the Clarks’ failure to disclose Mr. Clark’s diagnosis to the bankruptcy court amounted to a false representation which the bankruptcy court acted upon by discharging them, the district court granted the motion. Mr. Clark died during the pendency of the appeal. Read More
-
Eleventh Circuit Eliminates Presumption of Intent for Judicial Estoppel
Posted by NCBRC - September 19th, 2017
Whether a debtor intends to make a mockery of the judicial system when she fails to disclose a civil lawsuit in her bankruptcy schedules requires consideration of a totality of facts and circumstances. Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 12- 15548 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2017).
When she filed her chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Sandra Slater failed to disclose her civil lawsuit for retaliation and discrimination in her employment that was pending in district court. In fact, in her Schedule B and in the Statement of Financial Affairs she affirmatively stated that she had no contingent claims or pending lawsuits. After her bankruptcy was fully administrated, U.S. Steel moved for summary judgment in the district court seeking a finding that her pending claims for employment discrimination should be barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to her failure to disclose them in her bankruptcy. The next day, explaining that she had misunderstood the questions in the bankruptcy filings, Ms. Slater amended her bankruptcy documents to list the lawsuit. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee’s motion for an order to employ Ms. Slater’s current district court lawyers (who were different from her bankruptcy lawyer) so they could continue to pursue the employment lawsuit. Ms. Slater then converted from chapter 7 to chapter 13 but failed to make all required contributions to the plan and her case was ultimately dismissed. Read More
-
NACBA Takes On 11th Circuit Judicial Estoppel Doctrine
Posted by NCBRC - December 1st, 2016
NCBRC has filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of the NACBA membership to address the issue of that circuit’s approach to judicial estoppel. Slater v. U.S. Steel, No. 12-15568 (filed October 24, 2016).
Twenty one months after filing an employment discrimination suit in federal district court against her former employer, U.S. Steel, Sandra Slater filed for bankruptcy. (The original case was filed under chapter 7 and later converted to chapter 13). She failed to list the pending federal case in her bankruptcy schedules. U.S. Steel then moved the district court to bar the discrimination suit based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel. The district court granted the motion and Ms. Slater appealed. Read More
-
Nondischargeability Based on Collateral Estoppel
Posted by NCBRC - May 24th, 2016
Issue preclusion provided a short-cut to finding that the debtor’s liability for the costs and penalties incurred under state consumer protection laws was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under section 523(a)(6). O’Rorke v. Porcaro (In re Porcaro), No. 15-26 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Feb. 3, 2016). Read More
-
Request Assistance
Request assistance with a case.
-
Help NCBRC
NCBRC needs your support to protect the rights of consumer bankruptcy debtors. The most effective way to support NCBRC is with a direct donation.
There are many other ways to give to NRBRC:
iGive.com: When you purchase items at over 1,400 online stores, a percentage of your purchase will be donated to NCBRC. Stores include Macy’s, Melissa and Doug, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nike, Petsmart, and more. Shop and Give today!
-
HAVEN Act Guide
The Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act of 2019 (“HAVEN Act”) excludes certain benefits paid to veterans or their family members from the definition of current monthly income (“CMI”) found in the Bankruptcy Code. The HAVEN Act amends § 101(10A) of the Bankruptcy Code and supplements the 2005 amendments to the Code that excluded other government benefits, such as social security income.
This Guide provides an overview of the HAVEN Act identifies benefits that are excluded, and answers frequently asked questions.
-
Keep up with NCBRC
Thank you!
Thank you to the following organizations without whose support our work would not be possible.
American College of Bankruptcy
The American College of Bankruptcy is an honorary public service association of bankruptcy and insolvency professionals who are invited to join as Fellows based on a proven record of the highest standards of professionalism plus service to the profession and their communities. Together with its affiliated Foundation, the College is the largest financial supporter of bankruptcy and insolvency-related pro bono legal service programs in the United States.NACBA
The only national organization dedicated to serving the needs of consumer bankruptcy attorneys and protecting the rights of consumer debtors in bankruptcy. Formed in 1992, NACBA has more than 3,000 members located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.O. Max Gardner Foundation, Inc.
Visit NACBA.org
The O. Max Gardner Foundation, Inc. provides financial support to institutions devoted to charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes. NCBRC has been a recipient of grant awards from the foundation.