Court Opinion

ID: 9932884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:20.165282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:35.259540
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result to reverse the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. I write specially to note my disagreement with the position taken in the main opinion that the Criders' previous statements concerning the value of their claim are not matters to be considered by a state court. Rather, I believe that the doctrine of judicial estoppel, while not an absolute bar to the Criders' action, does bar the Criders from successfully maintaining on remand that they are entitled to a greater sum in damages than the value of their claim that they disclosed in their bankruptcy proceedings, i.e., $2,500. See Caplener v.United States Nat'l Bank of Oregon, 317 Or. 506, 519-20,857 P.2d 830, 838-39 (1993). Therefore, I believe that, on remand, the trial court should transfer the cause to the Cullman District Court. See § 12-11-9, Ala. Code 1975.