Ricketts v. Strange, 293 Va. 101

Background

On Feb. 3, 2012, Ricketts was injured in a vehicle accident and later required surgery for cervical disc injury.
Ricketts filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in Sept. 2012 and was required to schedule assets and claims.
On Jan. 16, 2014, before the statute of limitations expired, Ricketts sued Strange for negligence arising from the 2012 accident.
In her bankruptcy schedules, Ricketts listed broad, boilerplate language (e.g., "proceeds related to claims or causes of action that may be asserted by the debtor") under Schedule B and claimed exemptions on Schedule C, but she marked "None" for contingent/unliquidated claims on the separate line where such causes of action should be disclosed.
The circuit court granted Strange summary judgment, holding Ricketts lacked standing because her negligence claim remained estate property (not properly exempted) and thus was assertable only by the bankruptcy trustee; the court also denied Ricketts’s motions to (a) amend the named plaintiff as a misnomer and (b) substitute the trustee under Rule 3:17.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ricketts had standing to pursue the negligence claim after filing Chapter 7	Ricketts argued she properly exempted the claim via Schedule C language, so she retained the claim and standing	Strange argued the claim remained part of the bankruptcy estate because Ricketts failed to list and claim the cause of action with sufficient specificity and in the proper schedule	Held: No standing. The schedules were too general, and the claim was improperly scheduled, so the trustee (not Ricketts) had exclusive standing
Whether the circuit court should have allowed amendment for a misnomer under Va. Code § 8.01-6	Ricketts argued she could amend pleadings to insert the trustee as the correct party name	Strange argued the named plaintiff was not a mere name error but the wrong party	Held: Denied. This is not a misnomer (wrong person named), so § 8.01-6 does not allow substitution
Whether the trustee could be substituted under Rule 3:17	Ricketts argued substitution was appropriate because trustee is successor in interest and substitution would not change the cause of action	Strange argued Rule 3:17 applies when a party who once could prosecute later becomes incapable; Ricketts was never the proper party to prosecute the estate claim	Held: Denied. Rule 3:17 inapplicable where original plaintiff lacked standing; substitution is not permitted—remedy is nonsuit and suit by proper plaintiff
Whether the circuit court’s summary judgment deprived Ricketts of tolling of the statute of limitations	Ricketts implicitly argued relief from summary judgment would preserve tolling	Strange argued that an action filed by one without standing is a legal nullity and does not toll the statute of limitations	Held: The court reaffirmed that suits by parties lacking standing are legal nullities and do not toll the statute of limitations

Key Cases Cited

Kocher v. Campbell, 282 Va. 113 (Virginia Supreme Court) (bankruptcy estate and standing principles; action by party lacking standing is legal nullity)
National Am. Ins. Co. v. Ruppert Landscaping Co., 187 F.3d 439 (4th Cir.) (trustee has exclusive standing to bring causes of action that are estate property)
Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 789 F.2d 705 (9th Cir.) (inchoate claims at filing are part of the bankruptcy estate)
In re Clark, 711 F.2d 21 (3d Cir.) (purpose of exemptions: protect debtor’s basic necessities)
Payne v. Wood, 775 F.2d 202 (7th Cir.) (debtor must provide sufficient detail in schedules to put trustee on notice)