C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS STEFAN CRANE a

nd BREND A CRANE, Ap pe lla nts , v. RI CHARDSON BI KE MART, I NC., WI L DE RN ESS T RA I LB I KE S, I NC . a /k/ a W T B an d T R E K B IC Y C LE CORPOR ATI ON, Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 00 20 -C V

Appea l from the 16 2n d D ist

ri c t Co ur t of Dallas County , Texas (TC# 06-07356)

O P I N I O N This appea l arises fr om a per sonal injury lawsuit. I n the trial cour t, Appellees move d for a summary judgme nt, asserting that the Cranes ( Appellants) we re judicia lly estopped fr om pursuing their lawsuit, bec ause the Appellants did not disclose their persona l injury claim in their bankr

uptcy
c a se . On No ve mbe r 21, 20 07 , th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d th e Ap pe lle e s’ Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt. On Dec ember 4, 2007, the Appellants filed the ir notice of a ppeal. The Appellants ra ise two issues
on a pp e a l. F ir st, we re the Ap pe lle e s ent itl e d to the pr ote c tio n of the do c tr ine of jud ic ia l e sto pp e l, beca use of the A

ppellants’ fa ilure to disclose their potential per sonal injury claim in the bankr

uptcy
case . And sec ond, was the A ppel l an t s ’ failure to disclose their potential tort claims ag ainst the Appellee s the result of a

n honest mistake. We do not rea ch Appe llants’ issues on appea l and we
vacate the trial c ourt’s summary judgme nt and dismiss t he ca se for want of jurisdiction bec ause the Appellants do not have standing to pursue their c laim. T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.2(e).

I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On August 12, 2004, St efa n Crane w as airingup the re ar tire on his bicy cle at his home whenit e xplod e d. Th e Ap pel lan ts all ege th a t th e tir e ble w o ff the ri m c a

us ingpe rm ane nt h e ari nglos s. Six day s afte r the incident, Mr. Crane went to se e a doctor about his hear ing. A ppellant claims that beca use of the inc ident, he is essentially deaf and has unde rg one tre atment for his hearingdamag e, which has not been succe ssful. Appellant also c laims that his condition continues to worsen and that he wi ll h ave to r e ly

on an e le c tr on ic he ari nga id t o h e ar a ny thi nga t a ll. I n Marc h of 2005, Mr. Cra ne had a conver sation with Bria

n Eberste in (Eber stein) who wa s
an o ld c us tom e r a

nd an atto rn e y . Th e tw o me n dis c us se d App e lla nt’ s a c c ide nt a

nd the po ssi bil ity of fi lin g a laws uit be c a

us e of his inj ur ie s. Tw o we e ks a ft e r thi s conve rs a tio n, Ap pe lla nt m e t w ith Eberste in and it w as ag ree d that Eberste in w ould r epre sent Mr. Crane in any claims stemming f

rom his a c c ide nt. On May 10, 2005, the Appellants signe d a repr esentation a g ree ment with the law off ices of Hig g ins & Allmand, a

bankruptc y

law firm. The Appellants filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptc y

on September 9, 2005
. On S ch ed u le B (Persona l Property ), par t of the off

icial b an kr u p t c y f o r m s r e g ar d i n g a s s e t s an d

l i a b i l i t i e s , th e Ap p e l l an t s d i d n o td i s c l o s e th e i r

p o s s i ble persona l injury

claim to their cr editors and the B ankruptc y Court. On Dec ember

14, 2005, the Appellants re ceive d their di schar g e from debts under the provisions of t he United St ates B ankruptc y Code. On S ep t ember

16, 2005, only

one we ek af

ter the ba nkruptcy filing, the Appellants sent Eberste in a writt en ac count of the tire explos ion. Mr. Crane’ s wife se nt an e- mail indicating that she “will send the photos sepa rate ly as I have to g et them off his c omputer. Al s o , I have c opies of
rec eipts from doctors, he aringaids, presc riptions, etc. I can se nd y ou.” Approxim ately

one month afte r Appe llants rece ived their discha rg e, on January

10, 2006, the Appellants contac ted Eberstein to inquire about the status of his investigation. Appellants we re advised by Eberste in that they may have a claim, but that finding a tire expert might be problematic.On J anuar y 11, 2006, Eberste in se nt a demand letter

to Wi lderne ss Trail B ikes (WTB) reg ardingMr. Crane’ s hear ing loss cla im. Unhappy with Eberstein’s r epre sentation, the Appe llants terminated the repr e se ntatio n a g re e me nt w ithEb e rs te in o n Jun e 22 , 2 00 6, ob ta ine d n e w c ouns e l and fi le d th is laws uit
. On Octobe r 10, 2007, Tre k, Richardson B ike Mart ( RBM) , an d WTB filed a Motion for Summary J udg ment asser

ting the de fense of judicial estoppel. The Appellants filed their r eply , and
a ft e r a he ari ngwa s h e ld, the tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f A pp e lle e s. II. ST ANDAR

D OF REVIEW Standing is an implicit part of subjec t matter jurisdiction. M.D. Ande rson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W .3d 704, 708 (Tex. 2001). Whether a pa rty has standingto sue is a question of law, which w e re view de novo. Ho bb s v . V an Sta v e rn , 2 49 S.W. 3d

1, 3 ( Te x.Ap p. –H ou sto n [1s t Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (citing Texas De p’t of Transp. v. Cit

y of Sunset Valley , 146 S.W .3d 637, 646 (Tex. 2004)). Standing focuse s on who may bring an ac tion, W

aco Inde p. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson , 22 S.W .3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000), and c an be ba sed on either statutory or common law authority
. Ev e re tt v . TK- Tai to, L.L. C. , 178 S.W .3d 844, 850 (Tex.App.–For t Worth 2005, no pet.). As a c omponent of subject matter jurisdiction, standing c annot be wa ived and may be raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al by the par ties or the cour

t. W est Orange- Cove Consol. Indep. Sc h. Di st. v . A lan is , 107 S.W .3d 558, 587 (Tex. 2003). In our re view, we take the f actua l alleg ations in the petition as true and c onstrue them in favor of the ple ader
. Juarez v . Texas Ass’n of Sporting Offi cials, El Paso Chapter , 172 S.W .3d 274, 278 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2005, no p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex as Air Contr ol Bd. , 8 5 2 S
. W
. 2 d 4 4 0 , 4 4 6 ( T e x . 1 9 9 3 ) )
. In addition to the pleading s, we may also consider

rele vant evidenc e to re solve the jurisdictionalissues raised. Hobbs , 249 S.W .3d at 3 (c iting Bland Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547,

555 (Tex. 2000)). A. Background and L egal P rinciples I n revie wing a ca se that involves a ba nkruptcy proce eding , we a

pply fede ral ba

nkruptcy law. Section 541 of the Ba nkruptcy Code provides that at the commence ment of the ba nkruptcy
case , all of a de btor’s asse ts vest in the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) ; In reSwi ft , 129 F.3d 792, 795 ( 5th Cir. 1997). I ncluded in the e state of the ba nkruptcy are any cause s of action for persona l injury

belong ing to the de btor at the c ommenceme nt of the ca se. In reSwi ft , 129 F.3d at 795. Th e re pr e se ntativ e of

the ba nk ru ptc y e state is t he Cha pte r 7 B ank

ru ptc y Tr us te e , a nd is the re al par

ty in interest, and the only

party with standing to prose cute c auses of action belong ing to t he e state on c e the ba

nk ru ptc y pe tit ion ha s b e e n f

ile d. 11 U. S.C. §§ 32 3, 54 1( a )( 1) ; W ie bu rg v. GTE Southwest Inc. , 272 F.3d 302, 306 ( 5th Cir. 2001). “Onc e an a sset become s part of the ba nk ru ptc y e state , a ll r ig hts he ld b y

the de bto r i n th e a sse t are e xtinguis he d unle ss t he a sse t is abandone d” by

the trustee to the de btor pursuant to sec tion 554. Parker v . W endy’ s Int’l, Inc. , 36 5 F .3 d 1 26 8, 12 72 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) ; see11 U. S.C. § 5 54 . In a Cha pte r 7 c a se , “ [a]t t

he c los e of the ba nkruptcy case , proper

ty of the e state that is not abandone d under § 554 a nd that is not administered in the ba

nkruptcy proce eding s”-includingproper ty that was ne ver schedule d-“r emains the prope rty of the e state.” Parker , 365 F.3d at 1272; 11 U.S.C . § 554(d). But, “ upon abandonme nt . . . the trustee is . . . divested of control of the pr operty

beca use it is no longe r par

t of the estate . . . . Property abandone d under [ §] 554 reverts to the debtor , and the debtor’s r ights to the prope rty are treated as if no ba

nkruptcy petition was filed.” 11 U .S.C. § 55 4; Kane v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. , 535 F.3d 380, 385 ( 5th Cir. 2008). I f the a sset wasnot disclosed, as is require d under the bankruptc y code, the trustee c an re open the ba nkruptcy and pursue the c laim when he be comes a war e of it. See11 U. S.C. § 5 21 (a )( 1) ; In reCoa sta l P lai ns , Inc. , 179 F.3d at 207-08 (debtor has a c ontinuing duty

to disclose assets to the bankr uptcy court); Kane , 535 F.3d at 385; 11 U.S.C . § 350(b). B. Fac ts Before Us A thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d below esta blishes that the Appellants’ c ause of action
acc rued a nd exis ted prior to the ba

nkruptcy filing. “ The a ccr

ual of a cause of ac tion means the rig ht to inst itute and maintain a suit, and whe never one per son may

sue anothe r a c ause of

action has ac crue d.” Luling Oil & Gas Co. v. Humble O il & Refining Co. , 1 9 1 S. W. 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 1 ( T e x. 1946); it is clear that the cause of ac tion for per sonal injury was not listed on Schedule B of the bankruptc y

case and wor

ked to the detr iment of the cr editors; and the c ause of action has not been a bandoned to the de btors, by the Chapter 7 tr

ustee in a ba

nkruptcy order
. III . C ON CL USI ON Be cause the Appellants’ c ause of action existed at the time in which they filed for ba nk ru ptc y , it wa s p art of the ba nk ru ptc y e state . T he tr

us te e is the on ly

pa rt y wi th s tand ingto pursue the unde rlying c ause of action. The trustee wa s not made aw are of the Appe llants’ asset at the time of the or igina l bankruptcy proce eding , and he ha s not been g iven a c hance to either pursue or abandon the estate’ s claim. Where the tr ial court doe s not have jurisdiction to rende r a judgme nt, the proper

prac tice is for the revie wing court to set the judg ment aside a nd dismiss the
cause . Juarez , 1 72 S.W. 3d a t 27 4. B e c a

us e the Ap pe lla

nts do no t ha

ve sta nd ingto p ur su e the ir claim, we va cate the trial cour t’s summary

judgme nt and dismiss t he ca se for want of jurisdiction and do not re ach A

ppellants’ issues on appe al, T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.2(e).GUADA LUPE RI VERA, J ustice

Fe bruar y 26, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.