Robby Mowrey v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 315 P.3d 817

In June 2005 Robby Mowrey was injured at Chevron’s facility; the injury contributed to financial hardship.
The Mowreys filed a pro se Chapter 7 bankruptcy in September 2005; their schedules (prepared by a now-disbarred attorney) did not list any claim against Chevron.
The bankruptcy was reopened in 2006; the Mowreys learned of potential claims while the estate was open but did not amend Schedule B to disclose the claim.
The bankruptcy estate closed in May 2007; six weeks later (June 2007) the Mowreys sued Chevron. They did not disclose the suit to the trustee until Chevron raised the issue.
The district court dismissed the negligence action on judicial-estoppel grounds and, alternatively, for lack of standing because the claim became an asset of the bankruptcy estate and the trustee never pursued or joined the suit.
The trustee was authorized to appoint special litigation counsel but never entered an appearance; the trustee did not appeal. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars the Mowreys from pursuing the claim because they failed to disclose it in bankruptcy	Mowreys: non-disclosure was inadvertent/good-faith, due to reliance on counsel and ignorance of disclosure duty; reopening and amending cured any defect	Chevron: Mowreys knew or should have known of the claim during bankruptcy, received discharge advantage, and reopening/amendment after the fact does not avoid estoppel	Court held judicial estoppel applies; reopening/amendment and asserted inadvertence do not avoid estoppel
Whether the Mowreys are the real parties in interest (standing) to prosecute the claim	Mowreys: argue they brought suit and later reopened bankruptcy to amend schedules	Chevron: claim became property of the bankruptcy estate; only trustee has standing to assert estate causes of action	Court held the claim was an asset of the estate and the Mowreys lacked standing; trustee was not a party and did not pursue the claim

McCallister v. Dixon, 154 Idaho 891, 303 P.3d 578 (Idaho 2013) (judicial estoppel applies where debtor failed to disclose potential claim in bankruptcy and reopening/amendment does not necessarily avoid estoppel)
Sword v. Sweet, 140 Idaho 242, 92 P.3d 492 (Idaho 2004) (judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine invoked at court's discretion)
Riley v. W.R. Holdings, LLC, 143 Idaho 116, 138 P.3d 316 (Idaho 2006) (standards for reviewing discretionary rulings and abuse of discretion framework)
Heinze v. Bauer, 145 Idaho 232, 178 P.3d 597 (Idaho 2008) (inadvertence exception examined by reference to what debtor knew or should have known)
Tingley v. Harrison, 125 Idaho 86, 867 P.2d 960 (Idaho 1994) (bankruptcy trustee’s authority to prosecute estate claims and application of tolling statute for trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 108(a))
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers’ Ass’n v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 125 Idaho 401, 871 P.2d 818 (Idaho 1994) (attorney fees awarded only when suit is frivolous or without foundation)
Backman v. Lawrence, 147 Idaho 390, 210 P.3d 75 (Idaho 2009) (good-faith legal arguments are not grounds for attorney fees)