- 52 -
inconsistent with his position herein. To do so, Indeck would
have to show, as enunciated by the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, that Mr. Polsky “obtained a favorable * * *
settlement * * * on the basis of a legal or factual contention
that he wants to repudiate” in these proceedings. McNamara v.
City of Chicago, supra at 1225.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit adopted the
position that judicial estoppel may arise from a mere settlement,
rather than a judicial decision, in Kale v. Obuchowski, supra.
In that case, the party estopped had denied in State court
divorce proceedings that he held any interest in real property
other than the marital home and had obtained a favorable property
settlement on that basis as part of the proceedings. When the
party subsequently sought to enforce an alleged interest in an
industrial park in bankruptcy proceedings, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the party was
judicially estopped from asserting any interest in the industrial
park.
No comparable advantage was secured by any contention of Mr.
Polsky’s in connection with the settlement of the Lake County
Lawsuit. In those proceedings, Mr. Polsky did not obtain a
favorable settlement by prevailing in a contention that, for
Federal income tax purposes, he was entitled to treat $15,030,000
of the settlement payment as capital gain proceeds and $4,856,922
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011