 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robson v. Texas Eastern Corp.8/15/2005
y familiarity with bankruptcy proceedings generally and my personal knowledge of the Robson Chapter 13 proceeding specifically, it is my opinion there is no basis whatsoever to believe that either the Robsons or their attorneys misled anyone with respect to their personal injury claims.
Appellants' App. p. 402. These facts and statements clearly create genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate for this issue.
II. Standing
A debtor's failure to schedule a cause of action as an asset in bankruptcy may also deprive the debtor of state court standing to pursue the unscheduled claim. Unless a claim is scheduled by the debtor-plaintiff and abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee, the claim may no longer be pursued by the debtor-plaintiff. Hammes, 659 N.E.2d at 1026 n.4.
The absence of standing effectively prevents a plaintiff from pursuing an action and restrains the court from exercising its general jurisdiction over any issue in the case. Schlosser, 589 N.E.2d at 1179; see also Valley Fed. Sav. Bank, 612 N.E.2d at 1103; Boucher, 498 N.E.2d at 403 (the fact that the debtor-plaintiff did not list his cause of action on his bankruptcy schedule prevented abandonment by the trustee).
TEC claims that the Robsons' title of their claim, as listed in their bankruptcy schedule, confused Black as to the Robsons' personal injury claims and deprives them of standing. Br. of Appellee at 36. However, unlike previous Indiana cases applying the doctrine of standing to bankruptcy nondisclosure, (1) the Robsons disclosed their claim and (2) Black permitted the Robsons to pursue their claim. Appellants' App. pp. 150, 176-77.
The rule of standing permits state court consideration of the claim at issue when it is (1) disclosed and (2) abandoned by the trustee.
The implicit foundation for the Indiana decisions denying standing to debtor-plaintiffs is that the bankruptcy trustee has the only cognizable stake in the outcome of the tort claim. If the tort claim is part of the bankruptcy estate, this foundation is valid. If, however, the bankruptcy court abandons the claim, the foundation loses its logic. After the bankruptcy court abandons a claim, the debtor-plaintiff has the requisite personal stake to pursue the claim vigorously. Once the personal stake is regained, Indiana's purpose in applying the standing doctrine is fulfilled, and the doctrine should no longer bar the plaintiff from a day in court.
Holiday v. Kinslow, 659 N.E.2d 647, 650-51 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (emphasis added).
Tellingly, TEC cites Krystal Cadillac for its assertion that the doctrine of standing may be applied in instances where the plaintiff listed their cause of action in their bankruptcy schedule but did so in a manner intending to deceive. Br. of Appellee at 37. Krystal Cadillac did not rely upon or analyze the doctrine of standing when it dismissed the debtor-plaintiff's complaint; rather, Krystal Cadillac relied upon the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 337 F.3d at 316.
The doctrine of standing should remain limited to instances where complete non-disclosure on the part of the debtor-plaintiff precluded the trustee from properly abandoning the debtor's claim. When a debtor-plaintiff completely fails to bring a claim to the attention of the trustee, there is little concern that the debtor-plaintiff may have acted in good faith or that the party asserting standing is attempting to use technicalities to deprive the plaintiff of his day in court. However, when a debtor-plaintiff actually lists a cause of action in their bankruptcy schedules, there is a strong possibility that the debtor-plaintiff was acti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|