D’antignac v. Deere & Company, 342 Ga. App. 771

D’Antignac worked at John Deere; in June 2008 a co-worker made a noose and attempted to place it around her neck; she reported it, the co-worker was fired, and a similar rope appeared two days later; she was on disability through June 2010.
D’Antignac and her then-husband filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in February 2005; plan confirmed August 2005; she was discharged November 2008 and the case closed February 2009; she did not list claims against John Deere in bankruptcy schedules.
By August 2008 D’Antignac had counsel, filed an EEOC complaint (Aug. 22, 2008), and entered settlement negotiations with John Deere (offering $2,000,000) but did not amend bankruptcy schedules.
D’Antignac filed state and federal suits in 2010 asserting emotional-distress, assault, and Title VII claims; the federal district court granted summary judgment based on judicial estoppel for failure to disclose in bankruptcy; the 11th Circuit affirmed and certiorari was denied.
She reopened and refiled a state suit in 2014 alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention; the state trial court granted summary judgment for John Deere on res judicata and judicial estoppel grounds and alternatively on the merits.
On appeal, Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding D’Antignac’s failure to disclose her claims in Chapter 13 during the continuing duty period triggered judicial estoppel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars D’Antignac’s state-law claims	D’Antignac: no continuing duty to disclose post-confirmation claims; thus no inconsistent positions	John Deere: Chapter 13 debtors must continuously disclose claims arising before discharge; failure to disclose bars later assertion	Held: Judicial estoppel applies; claims barred because debtor had continuing duty to disclose claims acquired before discharge
Whether the automatic bankruptcy stay was violated by motions/judgments asserting judicial estoppel	D’Antignac: motions and judgments violated the automatic stay and are void	John Deere: bankruptcy stay ended at discharge/closure; motions and judgments occurred after stay lifted	Held: No stay violation; discharge occurred in 2008 and the suits/motions were filed later
Whether res judicata barred the refiled state claims	D’Antignac: (implicit) state claims not precluded	John Deere: claims were or could have been adjudicated in federal action; preclusion applies	Held: Trial court found res judicata applicable but appellate decision rested on judicial estoppel, so preclusion need not be decided further
Whether the state-law claims fail on the merits	D’Antignac: factual basis for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention	John Deere: claims fail as a matter of law	Held: Court affirmed on judicial estoppel grounds and declined to reach merits; trial court alternatively rejected claims on merits

Period Homes, Ltd. v. Wallick, 275 Ga. 486 (Ga. 2002) (adopting federal judicial estoppel principles and explaining Chapter 13 disclosure duties)
IBF Participating Income Fund v. Dillard-Winecoff, LLC, 275 Ga. 765 (Ga. 2002) (three-factor framework for applying judicial estoppel)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (articulating factors pertinent to judicial estoppel)
Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (applying judicial estoppel to Chapter 13 debtor’s post-confirmation employment-discrimination claim)
In re Waldron, 536 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding post-confirmation claims are property of the Chapter 13 estate)
Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mtg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2006) (Chapter 13 debtor’s continuing duty to disclose potential assets)
Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (duty to disclose all assets; duty is continuing)
Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243 (Ga. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment)