Szyszlo v. Akowitz
296 Mich. App. 40
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit after sustaining cortical blindness post-surgery.
- Plaintiff listed a medical malpractice claim as an estate asset in bankruptcy, claiming an exemption under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(D) for bodily injury—with no timely objections to the exemption.
- The bankruptcy trustee later filed a report of no distribution and the bankruptcy case was closed in May 2009.
- Defendants argued plaintiff lacked capacity to sue and that he was judicially estopped from seeking damages above the circuit court jurisdictional minimum.
- The trial court granted summary disposition, concluding lack of capacity; the court of appeals reversed on capacity and rejected estoppel, remanding for proceedings.
- At issue on appeal were whether the exemption gave plaintiff standing to sue despite the estate’s status and whether judicial estoppel barred recovery beyond $15,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was a proper party in interest at filing. | Plaintiff had an exempted asset and could sue. | Estate needed to abandon its interest for standing. | Plaintiff was a real party in interest at filing. |
| Whether plaintiff is judicially estopped from seeking more than $15,000. | Market value exemption did not equate to an unequivocal damages statement. | Damages could be limited by jurisdictional minimum. | Judicial estoppel not applicable; exemption preserved standing and allowed broader recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wissman v. Pittsburgh Nat’l Bank, 942 F.2d 867 (4th Cir. 1991) (exemption preserves standing without trustee abandonment; windfall rules apply to estate recovery)
- Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. _ (Supreme Court 2010) (trustee may claim excess over exemption but debtor still has an interest)
- In re Polis, 217 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2000) (valuation of exempted assets for purposes of determining exemptions and windfalls)
- Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (failure to timely object to exemptions does not defeat exemption when properly claimed)