Barron v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
332 Ga. App. 180
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1996 Barron purchased Lot 85 (1610 Chattahoochee Run Dr.) and later refinanced; deeds referenced a 1995 plat showing original Lot 85.
- In 2002 Barron purchased adjoining parcel (part of Lot 94) which the developer merged into an enlarged Lot 85 shown on a 2001 plat; Barron took possession and built a pool.
- In 2004 Barron refinanced with WaMu; the 2004 security deed referenced the 1995 plat (original Lot 85) rather than the 2001 plat (enlarged Lot 85); Barron claims he negotiated to exclude the 2002-acquired portion.
- Barron filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011, listing a single parcel (1610 Chattahoochee Run) and representing Wells Fargo held a secured claim; he received a no-asset discharge.
- Wells Fargo (assignee of WaMu) filed to reform the 2004 deed to reference the 2001 plat so it could foreclose on the entire combined parcel; the trial court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo and dismissed Barron’s counterclaims, applying judicial estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barron) | Defendant's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barron is judicially estopped from claiming Lot 94 was unencumbered | Barron says he effectively disclosed Lot 94 by listing a $10,000 "unsecured portion" on Schedule D and discussing Lot 94 with the trustee | Wells Fargo says Barron represented he owned one parcel and secured debt equaled property value, leading to a no-asset discharge; he concealed an unencumbered asset | Court held judicial estoppel applies: Barron’s bankruptcy representations were clearly inconsistent, successful, and would unfairly advantage him if not estopped |
| Whether Wells Fargo proved mutual mistake to reform the 2004 deed | Barron argues lack of mutual mistake and that factual disputes remain | Wells Fargo says reformation is supported because the deed incorrectly referenced the 1995 plat and Barron is estopped from denying he intended to encumber whole property | Because judicial estoppel precluded Barron’s contrary facts, court granted reformation summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo |
| Whether discovery (Rule 30(b)(6)) omission defeated summary judgment | Barron contends lack of deposition deprived him of material evidence on mutual mistake | Wells Fargo argues estoppel makes further discovery immaterial; deposition could add nothing | Court found no error in granting summary judgment given judicial estoppel rendered additional discovery immaterial |
| Whether Wells Fargo’s reformation suit was time-barred | Barron contends suit untimely under the 7-year reformation statute of limitations | Wells Fargo: statute begins when mistake should have been discovered; Barron’s post-bankruptcy discharge clarified the issue; equitable exceptions apply | Court held suit timely: discovery occurred at discharge and no prejudice justified equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct.) (judicial estoppel prevents parties from taking inconsistent positions in successive proceedings)
- Period Homes, Inc. v. Wallick, 275 Ga. 486 (Ga.) (judicial estoppel commonly invoked to prevent debtors concealing assets in bankruptcy)
- IBF Participating Income Fund v. Dillard-Winecoff, LLC, 275 Ga. 765 (Ga.) (enumerating factors for judicial estoppel application)
- Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.) (debtor who conceals assets in bankruptcy cannot later realize on them)
- Haffner v. Davis, 290 Ga. 753 (Ga.) (statute of limitations and discovery rule for equitable reformation)