Sharr Garza v. Chase Willard Reiche, 354310

On October 3, 2016, Garza was injured when Reiche turned in front of her vehicle in a collision; Garza filed a negligence suit in October 2019.
Garza had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in September 2016 (before the accident) and later filed multiple amendments to her schedules.
Garza did not list the negligence claim on her bankruptcy schedules until a May 20, 2020 amendment (revealed after her May 15, 2020 deposition).
Reiche moved for summary disposition arguing judicial estoppel and that the claim was property of the bankruptcy estate; the trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on judicial estoppel.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding judicial estoppel was not established because Garza amended while the bankruptcy remained pending, her omission appeared inadvertent, and applying estoppel could harm creditors; the court remanded for further proceedings and declined to resolve the separate capacity/estate-ownership argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars Garza's negligence claim	Garza: omission was corrected while bankruptcy pending; she lacked bad faith and acted inadvertently	Reiche: Garza took a contrary position in bankruptcy by not listing the claim; estoppel prevents inconsistent litigation	Court reversed trial court — judicial estoppel not shown (amendment occurred while bankruptcy pending; omission likely inadvertent; estoppel would not further doctrine's purpose)
Whether Garza lacked legal capacity because the claim belonged to the estate	Garza: under the plan she had authority/concurrent authority with trustee to maintain suit	Reiche: cause of action was estate property, so Garza lacked capacity to prosecute	Court declined to decide; remanded for trial court to address this issue

Spohn v Van Dyke Pub Sch, 296 Mich App 470 (2012) (sets bankruptcy-related judicial estoppel requirements and factors for inadvertence)
Opland v Kiesgan, 234 Mich App 352 (1999) (judicial estoppel is an extraordinary remedy to be applied with caution)
Szyszlo v Akowitz, 296 Mich App 40 (2012) (de novo review of judicial estoppel application)
Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343 (2011) (summary-disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when factual disputes exist)
Lichon v American Universal Ins, 435 Mich 408 (1990) (use of MCR 2.116(C)(7) for claims barred by legal principles)
Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (permissible documentary support for C(7) motions and evidence-viewing standard)
El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152 (2019) (de novo review of summary disposition rulings)