Opinion ID: 798283
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Guays' Inconsistent Positions Before the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court

Text: Under the rules governing the bankruptcy proceeding, appellant had an obligation to disclose all assets to the bankruptcy court, 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(1) and 541(a)(1), including legal claims and potential claims, see Moses, 606 F.3d at 793 (A debtor is required to disclose all potential claims in a bankruptcy petition.); Howe v. Richardson, 193 F.3d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1999) (Like all of [debtor's] property . . ., his legal claims became part of the bankruptcy `estate' under the Bankruptcy Code.). This disclosure must take the form of a schedule identifying all assets, 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1), and the debtor must amend his asset schedules and petition if circumstances change during the bankruptcy proceeding, see 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(7) (stating that estate property includes [a]ny interest in property that the estate acquires after the commencement of the case); Moses, 606 F.3d at 793 ([A] debtor is under a duty both to disclose the existence of pending lawsuits when he files a petition in bankruptcy and to amend his petition if circumstances change during the course of the bankruptcy.). The Guays failed to meet this baseline obligation to amend their bankruptcy schedules, even when ordered by the court to do so. In September 2009, the bankruptcy court ordered the Guays to file certain information required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including amended asset schedules. In response, the Guays filed an affidavit stating: 1. We have reviewed our Bankruptcy Petition and Amendments as filed and find that there is no additional information to include on our Petition or Amendments. 2. We make the foregoing declaration under penalty of perjury. The Guays again denied the existence of the claims they seek to bring here in their opposition to New Hampshire's motion for contempt. They stated that, [i]n accordance with the Court's request, the Debtors have filed an affidavit stating that the information provided in their bankruptcy schedules as amended was accurate and there are no changes. Accordingly, in addition to neglect of their general duty to disclose newly acquired assets, the Guays twice represented to the bankruptcy court that no such assets existed. These averments, and their general failure to update their bankruptcy schedules, are plainly inconsistent with the Guays' conduct in bringing their claims now. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, [b]y failing to update her bankruptcy schedule to reflect her [newly filed] claim, [debtor] represented that she had no legal claims to the bankruptcy court while simultaneously pursuing her legal claim . . . in the district court. These actions, both taken under oath, are clearly inconsistent. Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir.2010).