In re Guerra
544 B.R. 707
Bankr. M.D. Fla.2016Background
- Debtor filed Chapter 7 in 2011 and listed the Ruskin, FL property with BAC Home Loans as the mortgagee, intending to surrender the property.
- Discharge entered December 6, 2011.
- Approximately 2.5 years later, Deutsche Bank (successor to BAC Home Loans) foreclosed and the Debtor opposed, ultimately obtaining dismissal on summary judgment.
- Bank now moves to reopen the bankruptcy case to revoke the Debtor's discharge or compel withdrawal of defense based on alleged fraud on the court.
- Bank argues discharge may be voided for fraud on the court given the Debtor's inconsistent surrender intent and later opposition to foreclosure.
- Court declines to reopen and orders that judicial estoppel questions be addressed by the state court rather than reopening the bankruptcy case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge revocation is warranted for fraud on the court. | Bank contends Debtor's opposition violated her surrender oath. | Debtor asserts time gap and lack of clear fraud establish no basis to revoke. | Denied; court leaves estoppel to state court. |
| Whether laches bars reopening as alternative relief. | Bank cites delay as grounds to reopen. | Delay unclear and prejudice unlikely; laches not essential here. | Not relied upon; focus on judicial estoppel instead. |
| Whether judicial estoppel should bar Debtor from defending foreclosure. | Debtor's contradictory positions show a mockery of justice. | Time lapse suggests state court should decide estoppel; not for bankruptcy court to determine. | To be decided by state court rather than by reopening the bankruptcy case. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Metzler, 530 B.R. 894 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2015) (surrender meaning and timing for avoidance of conflicting actions in bankruptcy)
- In re Kourogenis, 539 B.R. 625 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2015) (laches; delayed foreclosure contest discussed)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court 2001) (judicial estoppel purpose to protect integrity of judicial process)
- Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2001) (judicial estoppel; equitable doctrine against inconsistent positions)