Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In a prior bankruptcy proceeding in federal court, Dallas Sales Co. did not list any claims related to its current litigation with Carlisle Silver Co. as part of its assets in its bankruptcy schedules. Dallas Sales asserted the omission was inadvertent and offered the affidavit of its bankruptcy attorney corroborating that assertion. Carlisle challenged Dallas Sales’ ability to pursue its claims against Carlisle at this time. Carlisle argued that Dallas Sales is judicially estopped. The trial court granted Carlisle’s motion for summary judgment. HOLDING:Affirmed. Under Texas law, the elements for judicial estoppel are: 1. the opponent made a sworn, inconsistent statement in a prior judicial proceeding; 2. the opponent gained some advantage by the prior statement; 3. the statement was not made inadvertently or because of mistake, fraud or duress; and 4. the statement was deliberate, clear and unequivocal. Under federal law, a party that has assumed one position in its pleadings may be estopped from asserting a contrary position in a subsequent proceeding if: 1. the position of the party to be estopped is clearly inconsistent with its previous one; 2. that party convinced the court in the previous proceeding to accept its position; and 3. that party asserted the prior position intentionally rather than inadvertently. Despite a prior ruling by this court where state law was applied to debtors in a foreclosure proceeding who failed to claim property as a homestead in a prior bankruptcy, the court here agrees with Carlisle that federal law should apply here because the prior proceeding was in federal bankruptcy court. The court’s change of heart is due to preserving judicial integrity and to comport with Texas Supreme Court principles of res judicata. The court overrules the prior decision, National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Taylor, 79 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App. � Waco 2002, pet. denied), to the extent that it conflicts with this new holding. The court finds it undisputed that Dallas Sales had knowledge of these claims at a time when it could have amended its schedules to include them because the claims formed the basis of the adversary proceeding it pursued in bankruptcy court. It is also undisputed that Dallas Sales Co. never amended its schedules. Accordingly, applying federal law, Dallas Sales is estopped from pursuing its claims against Carlisle. OPINION:Reyna, J.; Gray, Vance and Reyna, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.