I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - I A- 0 0 8 0 9 - S CT CO PI AH CO UN TY, M

I SS I SS I PPI
v. NANCY OLI VER ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 15/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COP I AH COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: J OSEPH W . GI LL RE BE CC A B . CO W AN ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: CU RT CRO W LEY NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 01/ 13/ 2011 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 10/ 14/ 2010 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E W A L L E R , C .J ., L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J . W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . T h e m o tio n fo r re h e a ri n g is d e n ie d . T h e o ri g in a l o p in io n is w ith d ra w n a n d th is
o p inion is sub sti tuted there for. ¶2. N ancy O l i verfi l ed f orC hapt er7 bankrupt cy, w hi ch s he l at erconvert ed t o C hapt er 13. A fte r th e b a n k ru p tcy c o u rt h a d c o n firm e d h e r C h a p ter 1 3 p a y m e n t p lan , O liv e r file d th is per s onal
- i nj ury s ui tagai ns tCopi ah C ounty. O l i ver , how ever , di d notamend herbankrupt cy s chedul e of

as s et s to ref

l ectthe exi s t ence of

thi s cl ai m . W e ar e as ked t o deci de w hether O liv e r’s fa ilu re to d o so re q u ire s th a t sh e b e ju d icia lly e sto p p e d fro m p u rsu in g h e r p e rso n a l-T he bankrupt cy ac t i on i s s tyl ed In R e : N a n c y J e a n R o b e rts ; N o . 0 5 -0 7 0 9 5 -e e . 1 T h e p lan re q u ire d O liv e r to m a k e b iw e e k ly p a y m e n ts o f $ 1 1 3 .0 0 fo r th irty -six 2 m o n th s , o r u n til h e r d e b ts u n d e r t h e p la n w e re p a id , b u t n o t to e x c e e d s ix ty m o n th s . 

### 2 i nj ur y c l a i m. W e d e c l i ne t o a ns w e rthi s q ue s t i on u nt i l the b a nk rup t c y c ou r th a s had an op po rtun i ty to det erm i ne w hetherO l i ver had a du ty to am end her schedu l e of ass et s. A cc o rdin g ly, w e a ffi rm the tri al c o u rt ’s d en ial o f su m m ary jud g m en t and d ir ec t th e tri al co u rt to s ta y th e p ro c e e d in g s u n til th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u rtp e rf o rm s its fu n c tio n . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3 . O n O ctob er 15 , 20 0 5 , N an cy O li v er fi led a v o lun tary pe ti ti o n p u rsua n t to C h ap ter 7 of the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cy C ode, and a c as e w as comm enced i n the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cy C ourtfor t he Sout hern D i s tr i ctof M i s s i s s i ppi . U pon O l i ver ’ s m ot i on, the

1 C hapt er7 p r oc e e di ng was c on ve r t e d t o a Cha pt e r1 3 c a s e o n D e c e mber1 5, 2 00 5. O l i ver f i l ed herpr opos ed C hapt er13 pl an w i th the bankrupt cy courton D ece m ber20, 2005. T he 2 b a n k ru p tc y c o u rte n te re d a n o rd e r c o n fi rm in g th e p la n o n F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 . ¶4. O n M ar ch 27, 2006, O l i ver tr i pped on a pi ece of l oos e carpet on the f r ont s t eps of

the C opi ah C ounty cour thous e, and w as i nj ur ed as a re s ul tof herfa l l . O n J ul y 26, 2007, O l i ver f i l ed a com pl ai ntagai ns tC opi ah C ounty i n the C i r cui tC our tof C opi ah C ounty, al l egi ng that the county w as negl i gentf orfa i l i ng t o corr ecta know n, unre as onabl y danger ous condi t i on o n its p re m ise s, a n d th a t sh e h a d su ffe re d in ju rie s a s a re su lt o f its n e g lig e n c e . L a ter , in
r es pons e t o i nt err ogat or i es posed by C opi ah C ounty, O l i verdi s cl os ed thats he pr evi ous l y had
comm ence d the C hapt er13 bankrupt cy pr ocee di ng, and w as i n t he pr oces s of payi ng on her

### 3

C hapt er13 pl an. She al s o di s cl os ed t o the C ounty t he exi s t ence of herbankrupt cy dur i ng her depos i t i on. ¶5. O n J ul y 11, 2008, C opi ah C ounty f i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , as s ert i ng that O l i vershou l d b e j ud i ci al l y est op ped fr om pu rs uing her personal
- i nj ury cl ai m becaus e s he had
nev er am end ed h er ban kruptcy sched ule of asset s t o ref

l ectthe ex i st ence o f hercl ai m against the county. O n M ar ch 30, 2009, the ci r cui tc ourthe l d a hea r i ng on C opi ah C ounty’ s m ot i on. D ur i ng t he hear i ng, O l i ver ’ s counse l adm i t t ed thatO l i verhad notam ended he rbankrupt cy s chedul e of

as s et s t o r ef

l ecthercaus e of

act i on. R ather , O l i ver ’ s couns el ar gued thatO l i ver is n o t re q u ire d to a m e n d h e r sc h e d u le o f a ss e ts u n til h e r la w su it ag a in st C o p iah C o u n ty is
c o n c lu d e d , e ith e r b y ju d g m e n t o r s e ttle m e n t. ¶6. O n A pr i l 30, 2009, the ci rcui tcou rtden i ed C op i ah C ounty’ s s um m ary- j udgm ent
m ot i on, f

i ndi ng thatthe m oti on sho ul d be addr es s ed f i r s ti n the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cy C our ti n w hi ch O l i ver ’ s bankrupt cy i s pendi ng. Ther eaf t er , Copi ah C ounty f

i l ed a pe t i t i on fo r i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l, w h ic h th is C o u rtg ra n te d o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 .

DI S CUS S I ON AND AN AL YS I S OF LA W ¶7. T hi s C our t r evi ew s a tr i al court ’ s gr ant or deni al of a m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent ora mot i on t o di s mi s s u nd era de novo s ta n d a rd . Mo n sa n to v. H a ll , 912 So. 2d 134, 136 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶8 . T h e on ly qu esti o n pres en ted in this ap p ea l is w h ethe r O li v er sh o u ld b e ju d icia lly
es t opped f

r om pur s ui ng herper s onal
- i nj ury cl a i m aga i ns tCopi a h Coun ty f orf a i l i ng t o amend

### 4

hersche dul e of

ass et s i n t he bankrupt cy courtt o show t he exi s t ence of the ca us e of

act i on, e v e n th o u g h th e c la im a ro s e p o s t- p e titio n a n d p o s t- c o n fi rm a tio n . ¶9. T he doctr i ne of j udi ci al es t oppel s houl d be appl i ed t o pr event a party f r om achi evi ng u n fa ira d v a n ta g e b y ta k in g in c o n s is te n t p o s itio n s in litig a tio n .

J udi ci al e s t oppel i s de s i gned t o pr ot ectthe j udi ci al s ys t em and appl i es w her e “i nt ent i onal s el f
- contr adi ct i on i s be i ng us ed as a means of obt ai ni ng u n fa ir a d v a n tag e in a fo ru m p ro v id e d fo r su ito rs s e e k in g jus tice .” In o rd e r to pr ot ectthe i nt egr i ty of

t he j udi ci ary, j udi ci al est oppel “m us tbe i nvoked i n the C our ti n w hi ch the appa r ents el f
- s ervi ng contr adi ct i on occurr ed and i n w hi ch th e d e fe n s e is fi rs t a s s e rt e d .” [T h e re a re ] th re e re q u ire m e n ts fo r ju d icia l es to p p e l: “(1 ) th e p a rty is j udi ci al l y es t opped onl y i f i t s pos i t i on i s c l ear l y i ncons i s t entw i th the pr evi ous one; ( 2) the courtm us thave a cce pt ed the pr evi ous pos i t i on; a nd ( 3) the nond is c lo s u re m u s t n o t h a v e b e e n in a d v e rt e n t.” K irk v. P ope , 9 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 8 1 , 9 9 1 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶10. I n K

irk , this C o u rt a p p lied ju d icia l es to p p e l a g a in s t t h e p la in tif f a fte r h e fa iled to d is c lo s e a b re a c h -o f- c o n tr a c t a c tio n to th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt . K irk , 97 3 So . 2d a t99 1- 92. T he s i tuat i on i n thi s cas e, how ever , is di s t i ngui s habl e f r om thati n K

irk . F i rs t , this case i nv olves C hap t er 13 of the b ank rupt cy co de, w hereas Ki r k i nv olve d C hapt er7. E ach bankrupt cy mechani s m has uni que p r ov i s i on s r e ga r di ng the s t a tus of the es t at e’ s pr operty and th e d u ty t o r e p o r t . M o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y , i ti s u n d i s p u t e d th a tOl i v e r ’ s p e r s o n a l
- i n j u ry c l a i m, unl i ke K i r k’ s br eac h- of
- contr actact i on, acc rued and a r os e af t ershe ha d f

i l ed herbankrupt cy pet i t i on and af

t erherC hapt er13 r epaymentpl an w as appr oved by the bankrupt cy court , and
s h e h a d b e g u n m a k in g p a y m e n ts o n th e p la n .

### 5

¶11 . T o decide i f j ud i ci al est op pel app l i es t o O l i ver’ s sui t against C op i ah C ou nty, i tm ust be det erm i ned w hethers he had a duty t o di s cl os e t o t he bankrupt cy courtherpos t - pet i t i on, pos t - conf

i r m at i on cl ai m . W e bel i eve ourm ostp rudentcour s e i s t o al l ow the bankrupt cy c o u rt to d e c id e th is q u e stio n a n d to s tay fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s u n til it h a s h a d a n o p p o rtu n ity t o do s o. T his co ur s e ens ur es thatthe pr es entact i on i s pr os ecut ed i n the name of the r eal p a rt y in in te re s t. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 2 . W e a ffirm th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d d ire c t th e tria l c o u rt to s t ay the pr ocee di ngs unt i l the bankrupt cy courtha s ha d an opportuni ty t o cons i derw hether O liv e r h a d a d u ty to d is c lo s e h e r p o s t- p e titio n , p o s t- c o n fi rm a tio n c la im . ¶ 1 3 . AF F I RM ED AND RE M ANDE D. C A R LSO N , P. J. , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .