Guay v. Burack, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7957

Kevin Guay filed a Chapter 11, later converted to Chapter 7 and discharged; the civil claims arose from an environmental search.
Guays did not amend bankruptcy schedules to disclose the claims as assets despite orders to do so.
During bankruptcy, the Guays faced a Fourth/Two other amendment requirements and were discharged October 27, 2009.
In 2009-2010, Guays filed §1983 and state-law claims against police and state agents; the district court later consolidated them.
District court granted summary judgment invoking judicial estoppel based on non-disclosure; this Court reviews for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistent positions support judicial estoppel.	Guay argues no inconsistency between bankruptcy and civil cases.	Estoppel applies when positions are mutually exclusive and one succeeded in court.	Yes, inconsistent positions and success; estoppel applies.
Whether the bankruptcy discharge accepted the Guays' position on assets.	Discharge does not necessarily signify acceptance of schedules.	Discharge accepted the positions advanced in schedules.	Bankruptcy discharge accepted the Guays' asset position.
Whether applying judicial estoppel is equitable here.	Guay contends no unfair advantage and trustee knew of claims.	Equities favor protecting bankruptcy process integrity; potential windfall justified.	Equities support applying judicial estoppel.
What is the appropriate standard of review?			Abuse of discretion standard applies.

Payless Wholesale Distribs., Inc. v. Alberto Culver (P.R.) Inc., 989 F.2d 570 (1st Cir. 1996) (integrity of bankruptcy processJustifies estoppel even with windfall risk)
Moses v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 606 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (failure to disclose assets justifies judicial estoppel)
Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2006) (discharge based on representations can validate estoppel)