Shoup v. Gore
14 N.E.3d. 11
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- John D. Shoup filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in February 2010 and began plan payments in April 2010.
- On October 12, 2010, Shoup suffered an injury while surveying property and later sued the Gores and Ameren/CILCO in McLean County circuit court (filed June 8, 2012).
- Shoup did not disclose the pending personal-injury claim to the bankruptcy court or amend his bankruptcy filings prior to receiving a discharge on June 25, 2012.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing judicial estoppel barred Shoup’s state-court claim because he failed to disclose the claim in bankruptcy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Shoup appealed arguing judicial estoppel did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Shoup’s personal-injury suit | Shoup did not take inconsistent positions under oath; doctrine inapplicable | Shoup impliedly represented no pending lawsuit to bankruptcy court and thus is estopped | Court affirmed: judicial estoppel applies and summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ceres Terminals, Inc. v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co., 259 Ill. App. 3d 836 (Ill. App. Ct.) (describing judicial estoppel’s purpose of preventing litigants from shifting positions)
- Dailey v. Smith, 292 Ill. App. 3d 22 (Ill. App. Ct.) (bankruptcy estate includes all debtor interests; nondisclosure of claims can implicate bankruptcy jurisdiction)
- In re Yonikus, 996 F.2d 866 (7th Cir. 1993) (bankruptcy estate encompasses contingent and derivative interests)
- Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2006) (a nondisclosed asset cannot later be used to benefit debtor post-discharge)
- People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (Ill. 2003) (standard for abuse of discretion review)