303 So.3d 454
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Calvin Jackson filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on November 19, 2014; his Chapter 13 plan was confirmed February 23, 2015, and his bankruptcy remained open through November 7, 2018.
- On November 13, 2017 Jackson slipped and fell while painting the Harrises’ bathroom, later claiming torn ACL and meniscus injuries.
- Jackson submitted a homeowners-insurance claim to State Farm on December 4, 2017 (claim denied) and sued Scottie and Oliver Harris on June 18, 2018.
- Jackson never disclosed the personal-injury claim to the bankruptcy trustee or bankruptcy court while his Chapter 13 case was pending.
- The Harrises moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on judicial-estoppel grounds; the circuit court granted relief and dismissed Jackson’s suit. Jackson appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding judicial estoppel barred Jackson’s action because the three-prong test was satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Jackson’s personal-injury suit because he failed to disclose the claim in his open Chapter 13 bankruptcy | Jackson: nondisclosure was an honest mistake / inadvertent | Harrises: omission was inconsistent with bankruptcy filings, the bankruptcy court accepted those filings, and the omission was not inadvertent (motive to conceal proceeds) | Court: Affirmed dismissal—judicial estoppel applies; all three prongs met |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirk v. Pope, 973 So. 2d 981 (Miss. 2007) (omission of a claim from bankruptcy filings is tantamount to representing no claim existed; judicial estoppel applied)
- Rogers v. Gulfside Casino P’ship, 206 So. 3d 1274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (debtors have continuing duty to disclose potential claims; failure supports judicial estoppel)
- Clark v. Neese, 131 So. 3d 556 (Miss. 2013) (sets out three‑part judicial‑estoppel test: inconsistent positions, court acceptance, and non‑inadvertence)
- In re Superior Crewboats Inc., 374 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2004) (a prior court need only have adopted the debtor’s position for judicial estoppel to apply)
- Jethroe v. Omnova Sols., Inc., 412 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2005) (debtor deemed to know claim if aware of facts giving rise to it; inadvertence requires lack of knowledge or motive)
- Bennett v. Highland Park Apartments LLC, 170 So. 3d 450 (Miss. 2015) (review standard when judicial estoppel is the basis for summary judgment)
- Carpenter v. Conway, 292 So. 3d 280 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (standards for reviewing motions to dismiss/summary judgment)