Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 345229; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Markey, and Beckering; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Judicial Estoppel
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of the defendants, holding that the plaintiff’s auto negligence action was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. After the subject motor vehicle collision, but before filing his auto negligence claim, the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and indicated in a bankruptcy proceeding that he did not have any outstanding claims against third parties. He then filed the instant auto negligence claim, in which he advanced the contrary position—that he did, in fact, have a claim for damages arising against a third party. The Court of Appeals thus determined that the plaintiff was barred from pursuing the subsequent auto negligence action.
The plaintiff, Robert Hernandez Jr., was involved in a motor vehicle collision in January of 2016, filed a workers’ compensation action in March of 2016, and then filed for bankruptcy in February of 2017. At a bankruptcy proceeding, Hernandez was asked whether he had any claims against third parties, to which he replied in the negative. Several months later, Hernandez filed the instant auto negligence claim. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals granted summary disposition for the defendants, who argued that, in light of the Hernandez’s testimony at the prior bankruptcy proceeding, the Hernandez’s claim was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In response, Hernandez filed this claim of appeal as well as a stipulated modification order in the bankruptcy court notifying it of his auto negligence claim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order, leaning on the requirements for applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel laid out in Spohn v Van Dyke Pub Schs, 296 Mich App 470 (2012):
(1) the party against whom estoppel is being invoked assumed a position in the civil action that was contrary to the one asserted by that party under oath in the bankruptcy proceeding; (2) the bankruptcy court adopted the contrary position either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition; and (3) advancement of the inconsistent positions did not result from mistake or inadvertence.
The Court of Appeals first concluded that Hernandez did assume contrary positions in the bankruptcy and civil proceedings—in satisfaction of the first part of the Spohn analysis—and that the stipulated modification order was filed too late “to be deemed effective for purposes of plaintiff’s attempt to show consistency of position in the bankruptcy and trial courts.” The Court next concluded that the bankruptcy court did rely on Hernandez’s misrepresentation in confirming his bankruptcy repayment plan—in satisfaction of the second part of the Spohn analysis—and lastly, that Hernandez’s contrary positions did not result from mistake or inadvertence—in satisfaction of the third part of the Spohn analysis. In regards to the third part of the Spohn analysis, the Court noted:
There can be no reasonable dispute that plaintiff had knowledge of the factual basis of the undisclosed claim. Plaintiff knew that he was in an accident in which his semi-tractor trailer was struck in a collision with another semi-tractor trailer that had lost control on the highway, and he was certainly aware that he suffered injuries as a result of the accident. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to establish mistake or inadvertence, as a matter of law, on the ground that he lacked knowledge of the factual basis of the undisclosed claim.
