Victoria Calixto, 648 B.R. 119

Debtor Victoria Calixto filed Chapter 13 on June 30, 2017; her third amended plan was confirmed April 30, 2018 and provided for vesting of estate property in the debtor.
Calixto completed plan payments, received a §1328(a) discharge on June 1, 2022, and the case closed on September 28, 2022.
On March 17, 2021 (post-confirmation, pre-discharge) Calixto alleges she slipped and fell at Gulfstream; she sued Gulfstream on June 30, 2022 but never amended her bankruptcy schedules to disclose the claim.
Gulfstream moved for summary judgment in state court, arguing lack of standing and judicial estoppel based on nondisclosure; Calixto moved to reopen her Chapter 13 case to file amended schedules.
The bankruptcy court found the post-confirmation tort claim was property of the estate under §1306(a)(1), agreed Eleventh Circuit law imposes a continuing duty to disclose, but held reopening was warranted because creditors were paid 100% and no creditor or trustee prejudice would result.
Court granted the motion to reopen, ordered Calixto to file amended schedules and a statement of financial affairs within 14 days, and directed the clerk to re-close the case after amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-confirmation negligence claim is property of the bankruptcy estate and had to be disclosed	Calixto: claim is property under §1306(a)(1) and Eleventh Circuit imposes continuing duty to amend schedules; she seeks to comply by reopening	Gulfstream: omission shows failure to disclose and supports estoppel; nondisclosure undermines litigation	Court: claim was estate property under §1306; Eleventh Circuit requires continuing disclosure; debtor must amend schedules
Whether the case should be reopened to permit amendment and avoid state-court dismissal/estoppel	Calixto: reopening is authorized by §350(b) and Rule 1009, will allow cure of a disclosure omission	Gulfstream: reopening is an improper attempt to avoid adverse summary judgment and judicial estoppel	Court: reopening granted — debtor will be allowed to amend because creditors not harmed and debtor benefits; reopening is equitable relief
Whether nondisclosure prejudiced creditors or affected trustee/estate administration	Calixto: no prejudice — plan paid unsecured creditors 100% and trustee’s administration unaffected; debtor retains right to pursue claims in Chapter 13	Gulfstream: nondisclosure threatens integrity of bankruptcy process and could indicate manipulation	Court: no creditor or trustee prejudice because full payment occurred; allowing amendment will not change estate distributions

Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizes continuing duty to disclose post-petition claims in Chapter 13)
Waldron v. Brown (In re Waldron), 536 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2008) (same)
Ajaka v. BrooksAmerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2006) (same)
De Leon v. Comcar Indus., Inc., 321 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (same)
Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) (permits liberal amendment and recognizes courts’ broad discretion to reopen cases to administer omitted assets)
Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (dicta cited as a source for the continuing-duty line)
In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) (earlier dictum relied on in subsequent Eleventh Circuit discussion)
Martin v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 944 (11th Cir. 1992) (describes the prior-precedent rule governing circuit law)
United States v. Machado, 804 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1986) (same)