354 S.W.3d 635
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Loth filed a FELA action against Union Pacific in September 2003 for cumulative trauma injuries.
- Approximately six months later, Loth filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and did not list the FELA claim on schedules or financial affairs.
- Bankruptcy discharge granted July 16, 2004, while the FELA action remained pending.
- In August 2008, four years after discharge, Loth moved to reopen the bankruptcy to include the FELA claim, supported by affidavits explaining non-disclosure was inadvertent.
- July 2009, Union Pacific moved for summary judgment alleging judicial estoppel due to nondisclosure; the trial court entered judgment for Union Pacific after applying New Hampshire v. Maine factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by applying summary judgment based on credibility determinations | Loth argues credibility questions must be resolved by a trier of fact, not on summary judgment. | Union Pacific contends the record supports an inference of deliberate concealment and thus a proper basis for judicial estoppel. | No; credibility determinations are improper at summary judgment and preclude judgment here. |
| Whether two plausible inferences about Loth's intent negate entitlement to summary judgment | Loth contends nondisclosure could be inadvertent or a good-faith mistake. | Union Pacific asserts deliberate concealment with motive to gain windfall. | Yes; genuine dispute exists as to intent; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the record supports applying judicial estoppel under Missouri law | Loth emphasizes equitable discretion and potential public-policy concerns against estoppel. | Union Pacific relies on federal authority and the New Hampshire v. Maine framework to justify estoppel. | Remanded for merits; the record does not resolve whether estoppel should apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard; propriety depends on absence of genuine disputes)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (three inquiries guiding judicial estoppel; not a formula)
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (caution against inferring motive from nondisclosure alone)
- Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2006) (bad legal advice does not relieve client of consequences)
- Eastman v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 493 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (inadvertent disclosure generally recognized when debtor lacks knowledge or motive)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (summary judgment in employment-discrimination cases is fact-based; depends on inferences)
- Eastman v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 493 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (inadvertent/inadvertent failure analysis in estoppel context)