- 6 -
In the motions for partial summary judgment, petitioners
argue that the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not bar Strong
or SCC from arguing that Strong possessed the claimed
accumulation of cash. Petitioners maintain that they should not
be bound by Strong’s failure to report this cash in the 1990
bankruptcy proceeding, alleging that Strong’s bankruptcy attorney
specifically advised him not to list the accumulated cash as an
asset in the bankruptcy petition. Petitioners indicate that
Strong, and, possibly, the bankruptcy attorney were confused
about whether the $165,000 was Strong’s or SCC’s. Strong states
that his resulting failure to list the cash in the bankruptcy
proceeding was thus unintentional, or a mistake. Petitioners
also point out that the bankruptcy attorney was subsequently
suspended from practice and has since retired.
Respondent filed an objection to petitioners’ motions.
Respondent maintains that, as a matter of law, the doctrine of
judicial estoppel precludes petitioners’ “cash hoard” argument
here, whether or not Strong’s failure to report the cash in the
bankruptcy proceeding was the result of bad advice from his
bankruptcy attorney. Respondent alternatively argues that, even
if petitioners are correct that erroneous legal advice is a
defense to judicial estoppel, there remain unresolved material
issues of fact about that legal advice. Respondent offers the
affidavit of Strong’s bankruptcy attorney in which the attorney
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011