- 23 -
supra at 27.9 Judicial estoppel is a doctrine adopted to protect
the courts, and we possess discretion in invoking it. Fazi v.
Commissioner, supra at 446; see also In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637,
642 (7th Cir. 1990).
Thus, in the instant case, we must determine: (1) Whether
John maintained before the Florida State courts that the
provision of the Stipulation and Final Judgment requiring him to
pay $2,500 per month was a property settlement under Florida law;
and, if so, (2) whether this position was accepted by the State
courts in their rulings. Unless both requirements are satisfied,
Faye's argument must fail.
In his motion to dismiss, filed in the Fourth Judicial
Circuit on or about January 12, 1982, John stated that "the Wife
is attempting to modify a property settlement agreement, which is
a non-modifiable document under the laws of the State of
9In Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th
Cir. 1982), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stated:
Absent judicial acceptance of the inconsistent
position, application of the rule is unwarranted
because no risk of inconsistent results exists. Thus,
the integrity of the judicial process is unaffected;
the perception that either the first or the second
court was misled is not present. [Citations omitted.]
See also Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 911 F.2d 1214, 1218 (6th
Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011