BIRR v. HAMPTON
484 P.3d 1030
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Birr filed a negligence/personal-injury suit against Hampton in March 2018 alleging injuries from a car collision.
- Birr filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on May 17, 2018 and did not list the pending personal-injury claim on his schedules or Statement of Financial Affairs.
- Birr received a bankruptcy discharge in August 2018 and the Chapter 7 case was closed; he later amended his bankruptcy schedules on February 18, 2019 after Hampton moved for summary judgment.
- Hampton moved for summary judgment arguing Birr lacked standing because the lawsuit was an asset of the bankruptcy estate and that judicial estoppel barred prosecution of the undisclosed claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hampton (finding lack of standing and judicial estoppel) and denied Birr’s § 1031.1(A) motion to vacate; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
- The record contained no affirmative evidence the Chapter 7 trustee ever administered or abandoned the claim; therefore the claim remained estate property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birr had standing to prosecute the personal-injury suit after filing Chapter 7 without disclosing it | Birr argued the estate had been abandoned and his later amended schedules cured standing | Hampton argued the undisclosed pending lawsuit became property of the bankruptcy estate and, absent trustee abandonment, Birr was not the real party in interest | Held: Birr lacked standing; the undisclosed claim remained estate property and record lacked evidence of trustee abandonment |
| Whether judicial estoppel barred Birr from prosecuting the suit | Birr argued estoppel did not apply and his later amendments negated any prejudice | Hampton argued Birr took an inconsistent position (failed to disclose the claim), convinced the bankruptcy court to accept that position (received discharge), and gained unfair advantage | Held: Judicial estoppel applies — Birr’s omission misled the bankruptcy court and allowed him an unfair advantage |
| Whether amendment of bankruptcy schedules after suit was exposed cures estoppel or standing defects | Birr contended amended schedules and final report show abandonment and cure | Hampton asserted post hoc amendments cannot erase the prior misrepresentation or substitute for trustee action | Held: Late amendments do not cure; disclosure only after being caught does not negate estoppel or restore standing |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying motion to vacate | Birr argued sufficient evidence showed abandonment and that relief was warranted | Hampton argued no affirmative proof of abandonment existed in the record | Held: No abuse of discretion — Birr failed to present evidence of trustee abandonment; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coble v. Bowers, 809 P.2d 69 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990) (pending lawsuit becomes asset of bankruptcy estate; trustee is real party in interest until abandonment)
- Abibo v. Sunset Mortgage Co., L.P., 154 P.3d 715 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (failure to properly schedule lawsuit leaves it under trustee control even after case closure)
- Something More, LLC v. Weatherford News, Inc., 310 P.3d 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013) (affirming estoppel where debtor failed to disclose pending suit in bankruptcy and later prosecuted it)
- Eastman v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 493 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (judicial estoppel applies where undisclosed lawsuit was an asset at bankruptcy and debtor later sought to prosecute it)
- Queen v. TA Operating, LLC, 734 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2013) (articulating three-factor inquiry for judicial estoppel: inconsistency, court acceptance, and unfair advantage)
- Bank of the Wichitas v. Ledford, 151 P.3d 103 (Okla. 2006) (describing judicial estoppel as protecting judicial integrity by barring litigants from asserting inconsistent factual positions)