- 7 -
states that he did not advise Strong to omit any cash on hand
during the bankruptcy proceeding. If that is so, respondent
argues that Strong cannot support his assertion of erroneous
legal advice as a defense to judicial estoppel. Respondent
maintains that, because Strong and the bankruptcy attorney differ
as to whether Strong was advised to omit the cash hoard, there
remains an unresolved material issue of fact which renders
summary judgment inappropriate.
Discussion
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that prevents
parties in subsequent judicial proceedings from asserting
positions contradictory to those they previously have
affirmatively persuaded a court to accept. Huddleston v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 17, 26 (1993). The doctrine of judicial
estoppel focuses on the relationship between a party and the
courts; it seeks to preserve the integrity of the judicial
process by preventing a party from successfully asserting one
position before a court and thereafter asserting a contradictory
position before the same or another court merely because it is
now in that party’s interest to do so. Id. Such manipulation of
the judicial process by a party has been characterized by the
courts as “cynical gamesmanship * * * to suit an exigency of the
moment”, Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 911 F.2d 1214, 1218 (6th
Cir. 1990); “blowing hot and cold”, Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011