Chrysler Group, L.L.C. v. Dixon
2017 Ohio 1161
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dixon worked for Chrysler, relocated from Ohio to Michigan in Jan 2010 under a written Relocation Repayment Agreement; Chrysler paid $41,873.95 in relocation benefits and mistakenly paid an additional $36,866.25.
- Dixon went on approved short-term medical leave in Jan 2010, was cleared to return in May 2010, failed to timely report and to repay the mistaken $36,866.25, and was terminated in December 2010.
- Chrysler sued Dixon in Cuyahoga Common Pleas to recover the relocation payment and the mistaken payment; Dixon filed counterclaims including wrongful termination (disability).
- Before the trial court resolved summary-judgment motions, Dixon filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and, in her schedules filed under penalty of perjury, did not list her counterclaims as assets (she listed Chrysler’s claim against her). The bankruptcy court discharged her debts.
- Ten months after discharge Dixon amended her bankruptcy schedules to list the counterclaims; the bankruptcy court did not act on the late amendment. After the stay lifted, Chrysler moved to bar Dixon’s counterclaims by judicial and equitable estoppel and argued Dixon lacked standing to pursue claims that belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The trial court granted summary judgment for Chrysler.
Issues
| Issue | Chrysler's Argument | Dixon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dixon is judicially/equitably estopped from litigating undisclosed counterclaims | Dixon failed to list counterclaims in bankruptcy schedules; her prior sworn omission bars later prosecution | Omission was inadvertent; she later disclosed orally to trustee and later amended schedules | Court held Dixon estopped: omission was knowing (claims were pending), oral disclosure insufficient, estoppel applies |
| Whether Dixon has standing to pursue counterclaims filed before bankruptcy | Only the Chapter 7 trustee (not debtor) has standing to pursue claims that were property of the bankruptcy estate | Dixon argued she disclosed to trustee and later amended schedules (and asserted exemptions) | Court held Dixon lacked standing; claims became estate property and only trustee could pursue them |
Key Cases Cited
- Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 879 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2007) (judicial estoppel elements and purpose)
- Reynolds v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 861 F.2d 469 (6th Cir. 1988) (doctrine prevents playing fast and loose with courts)
- Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2002) (inadvertent nondisclosure exceptions in bankruptcy context)
- Eubanks v. CBSK Financial Group, Inc., 385 F.3d 894 (6th Cir. 2004) (cause of action is an asset that must be scheduled)
- Bauer v. Commerce Union Bank, 859 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1988) (property of the estate remains estate property post-petition)