 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett v. Morgan4/19/2005
JUDGES: Concurring: Christine Quinn-Brintnall, J Dean Morgan
PUBLISHED OPINION - Motion to Publish Granted May 10, 2005
Russell Garrett, as Trustee of the bankrupt estates of Rebecca and Thomas Davis, appeals from a trial court ruling that judicial estoppel precludes the Trustee from pursuing the Davises' personal injury claims against Bruce Morgan, D.P.M. We affirm.
FACTS
In May 1997, the Davises filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. In June 1997, they filed a personal injury lawsuit against Morgan based on the medical care he provided to Rebecca Davis between 1994 and 1996.
In the statement of damages in their negligence lawsuit against Morgan, the Davises claimed $7,625.80 in special damages and $5,000,000 in general damages. They did not list this claim in their bankruptcy schedules and during their creditors' meeting; they further denied having any future personal injury claims. The bankruptcy court closed their case as a 'no asset' one and discharged their debts.
In June 2000, Morgan filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy . The Davises sought and obtained relief from an automatic bankruptcy stay because Morgan's professional negligence insurance provided a source of damages recovery.
In April 2001, Morgan moved for summary judgment of dismissal of the Davises' lawsuit, arguing that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded them from seeking compensation . The Davises responded by obtaining leave to reopen their bankruptcy case in order to schedule their negligence claims against Morgan.
The bankruptcy court granted the Davises' motion and in June 2001, it appointed a Trustee to substitute as the party-plaintiff in an action against Morgan. It also scheduled the claim. Morgan then renewed his summary judgment motion.
Before ruling on the summary judgment motion, the trial court set an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Davises intentionally failed to disclose their claim to the bankruptcy court. The Trustee moved to strike the hearing, arguing that when the bankruptcy court reopened the case, scheduled the negligence claim, and ordered the Trustee to start litigation, it rendered Morgan's judicial estoppel argument moot. The trial court denied the Trustee's motion.
The matter proceeded to the evidentiary hearing. The trial court found that Rebecca Davis falsely denied a potential claim and intentionally failed to disclose it. The trial court then concluded that judicial estoppel barred the Trustee, who stood in the Davises' shoes, from pursuing the lawsuit against Morgan. The Trustee appeals from the trial court's order granting Morgan summary judgment dismissing the Davises' claims.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
In reviewing a summary judgment order, we place ourselves in the same position as the trial court, and we consider the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cunningham v. Reliable Concrete Pumping, Inc.,, Wn. App. , 108 P.3d 147, 150 (2005). In a summary judgment motion, the moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of an issue of material fact. Cunningham, 108 P.3d at 149.
We review the trial court's application of judicial estoppel for an abuse of discretion. Cunningham, 108 P.3d at 150. A court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on untenable grounds or reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
Judicial Estoppel
Judicial estoppel arises in equity and serves to preclude a party from gaining an advantage by asserting one position before a court and then later taking a clearly inconsistent po
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|