Shannon Rogers v. Gulfside Casino Partnership
206 So. 3d 1274
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On March 30, 2010 Shannon Rogers slipped and fell at Island View Casino (owned by Gulfside) and notified Gulfside the next day of a personal-injury claim.
- Rogers and her husband had an open Chapter 13 bankruptcy (filed 2005; plan confirmed 2006); they received a discharge October 4, 2010 and the case closed March 14, 2011.
- Rogers did not disclose the March 2010 potential claim to the bankruptcy trustee while the bankruptcy case remained pending.
- Rogers filed suit against Gulfside in Harrison County Circuit Court on March 28, 2013 seeking substantial damages.
- Gulfside moved for summary judgment arguing judicial estoppel barred the suit because Rogers failed to disclose the claim in bankruptcy; the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Rogers had a continuing duty to disclose the claim and that judicial estoppel was properly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers had a duty to disclose the post-petition, post-confirmation claim in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy | Rogers implicitly argues she could later pursue the claim after discharge and therefore had no disclosure duty that precluded suit | Gulfside: debtor had an ongoing duty to disclose contingent/unliquidated claims while the bankruptcy was pending | Court: Duty existed — federal and bankr. decisions require disclosure of potential claims during pendency of case |
| Whether non-disclosure satisfies the elements for judicial estoppel (inconsistent position; acceptance by court; non-inadvertence) | Rogers argued non-disclosure was not subject to judicial estoppel or that the bankruptcy court should resolve the disclosure duty (cited Copiah County) | Gulfside: positions are inconsistent, discharge accepted the representation of full disclosure, and nondisclosure was not inadvertent | Court: All three elements met — inconsistent positions, bankruptcy court accepted prior representation, nondisclosure was not inadvertent |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing judicial estoppel and granting summary judgment | Rogers argued the matter should be stayed for bankruptcy-court input and that estoppel was inappropriate | Gulfside argued judicial estoppel was appropriate and dismissal with prejudice proper | Court: No abuse of discretion — dismissal affirmed (judicial estoppel is equitable and discretionary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Copiah County v. Oliver, 51 So.3d 205 (Miss. 2011) (addressing duty to disclose post-petition, post-confirmation claims and prudence of bankruptcy-court input)
- Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2012) (Chapter 13 debtors have an ongoing duty to disclose contingent and unliquidated claims)
- Superior Crewboats, Inc. v. Primary P & I Underwriters, 374 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2004) (judicial estoppel elements and application when debtor fails to disclose assets)
- In re Flugence, 738 F.3d 126 (5th Cir. 2013) (failure to disclose implies representation that no claim exists; inconsistency supports estoppel)
- Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2005) (debtor bears burden to prove nondisclosure was inadvertent; ‘‘knowledge’’ means awareness of facts giving rise to claim)