Culgan v. Miller
2011 Ohio 4298
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2006, the Culgans sued Bank One and John Doe defendants for damages to personal property during a writ of possession.
- Chase, successor to Bank One, moved for partial summary judgment, asserting judicial estoppel based on the Culgans' bankruptcy schedules listing only $1,600 of personal property.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment, estopping claims for damages exceeding $1,600 and dismissed John Doe defendants without prejudice.
- The Culgans settled with Chase (confidentially), dismissed Chase with prejudice, and reserved rights to sue Mr. Miller.
- In 2008, the Culgans sued Mr. Miller (and Caitlin as beneficiary of a trust) for damages exceeding $1 million from the 2004 writ of possession.
- Miller moved for summary judgment on several grounds; the trial court granted summary judgment for Miller on judicial estoppel and related issues; the Culgans appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment on judicial estoppel against the Culgans? | Culgan: estoppel does not bar post-bankruptcy property claims. | Miller: undisclosed property precluded by judicial estoppel; settlement value exceeded bankruptcy disclosure. | Yes; court upheld judicial estoppel and summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 2007) (outlines elements of judicial estoppel)
- Dresher v. Bur t, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant then nonmovant)
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 1993) (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment criteria)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (standard for granting summary judgment)