Court Opinion

ID: 9756610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:40:14.740201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:26.597221
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. Because the bankruptcy court has reopened the bankmptcy estate and appointed the Trustee in bankruptcy to replace the Nixes as the plaintiff for the purpose of prosecuting the lender-liability suit against the appellees, I concur in the result reached by the majority. I can find no case where judicial estoppel has been applied when the bankruptcy estate has been reopened and the Trustee has taken over as party-plaintiff. Two things occur to me under this scenario. First, because the bankruptcy court has agreed that the suit, with the Trustee as plaintiff, can go forward, it is difficult under these circumstances to conclude that the integrity of the bankruptcy court has been impugned. Also, since the Trustee is now the plaintiff and acting on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, I cannot agree that it is the Nixes who are manipulating the system to their advantage. Accordingly, I would not invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel under the facts of this case. Where I take issue with the majority opinion is with the blanket statement that there was no evidence of wrongful intent offered by the appellees. I have concluded that the Nixes did take inconsistent positions with their Bankruptcy Schedules and, after bankruptcy, with their lender-liability lawsuit. I further am convinced that this inconsistency raises a prima facie case of manipulation of the judicial system, which required a response in the form of proof from the Nixes for purposes of avoiding summary judgment. See Luna v. Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee, 631 So. 2d 917 (Ala. 1993). Clearly, the Nixes knew or should of known they had a cause of action against the appellees for lender-liability before they filed for bankruptcy. Yet, they refused to list this as an asset. Shortly after their debts had been discharged, they filed the lender-liability lawsuit. In his brief, the Trustee offers several explanations of why the Nixes failed to disclose their cause of action against the bank in their bankruptcy petition: • they were confused by the bankruptcy legalese on the Bankruptcy Schedule; • they did not realize a potential lawsuit was an asset; and • both of the Nixes had only high-school educations. Having argued these “defenses,” the Trustee offered no affidavit or deposition from the Nixes explaining why they had previously sworn that all assets had been disclosed when they had not been. Nor has the Trustee explained why having legal counsel did not cure the Nixes’ alleged ignorance about the bankruptcy process. Nevertheless, because the Trustee is now the plaintiff and because the bankruptcy estate has been reopened by the bankruptcy court, I concur in the result.