Fulton County v. Ward-Poag, 310 Ga. 289

Ward-Poag was hired by Fulton County in 2012 and filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in May 2013 (plan confirmed March 2014). Her Chapter 13 plan ran through March 2019.
She filed a verified whistleblower lawsuit against Fulton County in October 2016 (amended complaint sought $3 million plus fees and interest).
Fulton County moved for summary judgment in Sept. 2017, arguing judicial estoppel because Ward-Poag had not listed the lawsuit as an asset in her bankruptcy schedules.
After the County’s motion, Ward-Poag amended her bankruptcy schedules (Oct. 2, 2017) to disclose the claim and swore the asset’s value was $1; she later submitted affidavits claiming she was unaware of the duty to disclose and did not intend to deceive.
The superior court granted summary judgment for the County, finding intent to deceive; the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on precedent suggesting an amendment cures inconsistency.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, disapproved any bright-line rule that an amendment automatically forecloses judicial estoppel, but affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal because genuine factual disputes (intent) made summary judgment improper and remand (with potential evidentiary hearing) was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amending a bankruptcy schedule to disclose a previously undisclosed lawsuit automatically precludes application of judicial estoppel	Amendment shows positions are consistent; no intent to deceive because claim was disclosed	Amendment after suit filed (and valuation of $1) can still be evidence of manipulation; nondisclosure followed by undervaluation supports estoppel	Court rejects a bright-line rule: amendment is not automatically dispositive; consistency depends on circumstances (valuation, timing, intent)
Whether judicial estoppel could be resolved on summary judgment here (i.e., whether intent to deceive is undisputed)	Ward-Poag: she lacked intent, was unaware of disclosure duty, and filed affidavits denying deception	County: facts (law degree, counsel, timing, $1 valuation) establish undisputed intent to mock courts and deceive creditors	Court holds summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes (intent, credibility) exist; remand for further factfinding under the Slater factors

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (establishes general judicial estoppel factors and warns against inflexible rules)
Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. en banc) (adopts two‑part test for bankruptcy nondisclosure: inconsistent under oath and whether statements were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system; lists factors to assess intent)
Smith v. Haynes & Haynes, P.C., 940 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2019) (emphasizes that nondisclosure alone does not prove intent; equitable factors must be weighed)
Period Homes v. Wallick, 275 Ga. 486 (GA 2002) (Georgia applies federal judicial estoppel doctrine)
Wolfork v. Tackett, 273 Ga. 328 (GA 2001) (discusses bankruptcy nondisclosure as basis for judicial estoppel)
Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga. 468 (GA 2006) (noting that amendment can often render positions consistent, but not dispositive in all circumstances)
Ward-Poag v. Fulton County, 351 Ga. App. 325 (Court of Appeals decision reversing superior court; relied on amendment to schedules)