Shirley Adams v. Graceland Care Center of Oxford, LLC, 2017 Miss. LEXIS 18

Dorothy Turner resided at Graceland facilities; her daughter Shirley Adams investigated possible claims in 2004–2005, Turner died in 2007, and Adams sued Graceland in May 2008.
Adams filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in August 2004 and received a discharge March 31, 2009, but did not list the later-filed lawsuit in her bankruptcy schedules prior to discharge.
Graceland learned of the omission during discovery and moved for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel; Adams reopened her bankruptcy and amended schedules only after the motion.
The bankruptcy court held Adams had a continuing duty to disclose the state-law cause of action; the trustee reported it would abandon any recovery for unsecured creditors.
The Lafayette County Circuit Court granted summary judgment invoking judicial estoppel; the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed, applying de novo review and finding factual disputes about inadvertence and intent.
The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the Court of Appeals used the wrong standard of review, affirmed the circuit court (judicial estoppel applied), and reinstated summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate standard of review for trial court’s imposition of judicial estoppel and for summary judgment	De novo review required because estoppel was raised via Rule 56 motion (and summary judgment is reviewed de novo)	Judicial estoppel application is reviewed for abuse of discretion; summary judgment is reviewed de novo	Circuit court’s estoppel ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion; summary judgment proper de novo after estoppel determination; Court of Appeals erred by applying de novo to estoppel
Whether judicial estoppel bars Adams’ suit (elements: inconsistent position; court acceptance; non-inadvertence)	Adams says omission was inadvertent (distracted/unsophisticated; did not know she had to list the claim)	Graceland points to Adams’ prior knowledge of facts, duty to update schedules, beneficiary status, and timing of amendment as showing motive and non-inadvertence	Court held all three elements satisfied: position inconsistent, court accepted original schedules, and nondisclosure was not inadvertent (knowledge + motive); trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether summary judgment was appropriate after estoppel finding	Adams: factual disputes (affidavit that she did not know she had to disclose) preclude summary judgment	Graceland: no genuine material fact remains once estoppel properly applied	Court held no genuine issue of material fact remained after estoppel determination; summary judgment affirmed

Copiah County v. Oliver, 51 So.3d 205 (Miss. 2011) (discusses interplay of bankruptcy disclosure and summary-judgment timing)
Kirk v. Pope, 973 So.2d 981 (Miss. 2007) (sets out judicial-estoppel elements and discusses inadvertence standard)
Gibson v. Williams, Williams & Montgomery, P.A., 186 So.3d 836 (Miss. 2016) (applied de novo review to summary-judgment posture considering estoppel; held estoppel did not bar claim on plaintiff’s inadvertence theory)
In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2004) (federal precedent applying judicial estoppel to undisclosed post-petition personal-injury claims; confusion does not excuse nondisclosure)
Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses burden-shifting on motive and inadvertence when nondisclosure shown)
Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2005) (judicial estoppel particularly apt where debtor fails to disclose asset then pursues claim elsewhere)
Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (court may infer deliberate nondisclosure from circumstances)
Detroit Marine Eng’g v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462 (Miss. 1987) (abuse-of-discretion review explained for factual determinations)