WALTOGUY ANFRIANY and MIRELLE ANFRIANY v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
16-4182
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Deutsche Bank filed foreclosure against the Anfrianys in 2008; the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
- In 2012 the trial court entered an order finding the Anfrianys entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and set an evidentiary hearing if parties could not agree on amount.
- In 2013 Anfriany filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and did not list the contingent/unliquidated claim for attorney’s fees on his schedules; the plan was later confirmed and the case administratively closed.
- In 2015 Anfriany sought an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonable amount of fees and costs.
- In 2016 Deutsche Bank moved to vacate the fee-entitlement order, arguing judicial estoppel barred recovery because Anfriany failed to disclose the fee award in bankruptcy.
- The trial court granted the Bank’s motion relying on the Fifth Circuit’s Coastal Plains standard; Anfriany appealed. The Fourth District reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anfriany) | Defendant's Argument (Deutsche Bank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fee-entitlement award was property/disclosed in bankruptcy | Fees were not treated as an asset of debtor (or debtor/ counsel were unaware); omission was inadvertent and no creditor prejudice | The fee entitlement was a contingent/unliquidated asset that should have been disclosed; omission was inconsistent and warrants judicial estoppel | Court affirmed without discussion that the fee award was not treated as debtor’s asset for purposes here |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars enforcement of the fee-entitlement order given Chapter 11 and nondisclosure | Chapter 11 does not discharge debts; omission did not prejudice creditors and there was no motive to conceal, so estoppel should not apply | Failure to disclose the contingent fee claim misled the bankruptcy court/creditors and taking an inconsistent position warrants estoppel (citing Coastal Plains) | Reversed trial court: Florida judicial estoppel (per Blumberg/Grau) not satisfied—no prejudice, Bank knew of the fee order, no unfair advantage; Coastal Plains standard was improperly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2001) (Florida formulation of judicial estoppel and limitations on its application)
- Grau v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (expands Blumberg and frames prejudice/unfair advantage inquiry)
- In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) (federal bankruptcy-focused judicial estoppel standard relied on by trial court)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (Supreme Court discussion of unfair advantage/prejudice in judicial estoppel)
- Chase & Co. v. Little, 156 So. 609 (Fla. 1934) (pre-Blumberg articulation of estoppel requirements)