- 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 attorneyPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011